The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think that Plantinga's argument is a kind of recoil argument. He attempts to show that starting with naturalist premises leads us to doubt our cognitive faculties. which in turn leads us to doubt our choice of premises. But since Plantinga can play the god card, no symmetrical argument works against his position. I hope that clarifies.

That's it? Seems like a lot of vacuous posturing.

For one to be able to validly play "the god card" one would need proof of the existence of God. I suspect he falls short there. Even if he were to provide a proof, it seems that Christianity does not support humans actually being "made in god's image" because if they were, they would not sin. Furthermore, humans are depicted as "unable to see" and "unable to hear". Are these attributes of a "reliable cognitive agent"?

"Starting with naturalist premises leads us to doubt our cognitive faculties" only if one doesn't see the folly in assigning attributes to individual members of a group based on probabilities for that group.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That's it? Seems like a lot of vacuous posturing.

For one to be able to validly play "the god card" one would need proof of the existence of God. I suspect he falls short there. Even if he were to provide a proof, it seems that Christianity does not support humans actually being "made in god's image" because if they were, they would not sin. Furthermo ...[text shortened]... ttributes to individual members of a group based on probabilities for that group.

Do you realise you are completely oblivious to the truth?

Your opinions mean nothing.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you realise you are completely oblivious to the truth?

Your opinions mean nothing.

C'mon joseph. At least try to contribute some meaningful content to the discussion.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon joseph. At least try to contribute some meaningful content to the discussion.

I'm waiting for you to contribute something meaningful. And waiting, and waiting...

Originally posted by josephw
I'm waiting for you to contribute something meaningful. And waiting, and waiting...

Ah, you have eyes but cannot see.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Ah, you have eyes but cannot see.

I feel sorry for you. :'(

Originally posted by josephw
I feel sorry for you. :'(

Why so sad little buckaroo?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why so sad little buckaroo?

Because you're so mean to me! 😞

I always wanted to use that depressed smiley. 😏

Originally posted by josephw
Because you're so mean to me! 😞

I always wanted to use that depressed smiley. 😏

Mean? Truth is your friend if you let it be. You just have to learn to embrace it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That's it? Seems like a lot of vacuous posturing.

For one to be able to validly play "the god card" one would need proof of the existence of God. I suspect he falls short there. Even if he were to provide a proof, it seems that Christianity does not support humans actually being "made in god's image" because if they were, they would not sin. Furthermo ttributes to individual members of a group based on probabilities for that group.

The one cognitive faculty that I cannot doubt is doubt. That is, I cannot doubt that I doubt something as I am doubting it. I might say, “I doubt there is a god”; I cannot say, “I doubt that I doubt there is a god”. (That follows Ortega y Gasset’s reformulation of Descartes.)

I don’t think that Plantinga’s “god card” works either—at least as it has been outlined here. I think Plantinga would have to argue that such a god is necessary for me to have sufficient cognitive faculty doubt that there is such a god…

With that said, I think LS is right about premise (2).

On the other hand, this kind of argument seems to quickly become artificially binary—either a supernatural god-being, or “natural” randomity. For no other reason than Ockham’s razor, the notion of a cosmos itself characterized by intelligence (very broadly construed, no doubt) would stand up to the supernatural-god hypothesis. [The cosmological argument falls as soon as one stops treating the “cosmos” (or the “universe” ) like some kind of mysterious jar containing bugs. I often wonder why ID proponents think that ID itself would imply a god.] Or, I could say that the Tao is characterized by some kind of mysterious intelligence (that my cognitive faculties are insufficient to fully understand) in which certain sentient beings(such as ourselves) participate. Or, I could say…

Originally posted by epiphinehas
(1) If naturalism is true, some evolutionary doctrine must also be true and our evolutionary history must be accounted for in terms of only random mutation and natural selection.

Evolution is a bit more complicated than that.

(2) The probability of our being reliable cognitive agents given these origins is low or, at best, inscrutable. But it cannot reasonably be thought to be high.
Is there any argument to back that up, or is it one of those 'feelings' type claims?
I personally think it is quite the opposite. If cognitive agents arise via evolution I would expect them to reasonably reliable. I think that ThinkOfOne has already argued along these lines.
I can certainly think of no reason whatsoever to think that an unreliable cognitive agent would arise.

(3) Consequently, the naturalist cannot reasonably hold to the belief that they are reliable cognitive agents.
Again, I agree with ThinkOfOne, that the probability argument is fundamentally flawed.

(4) And since the reliability of their cognitive apparatus has been called into such grave question, naturalists are rationally bound to dismiss any belief accepted on the basis of trust in that apparatus.
Why? Should they equally dismiss all beliefs and descend into madness? Is that the suggestion? If not, then what is being claimed here?

(5) Specifically, to the extent that the naturalist is rational, they will give up their belief in naturalism.
Why? Is it now the claim the because the cognitive agent is known to be unreliable then all its beliefs are false? That surely doesn't follow. In fact, this whole argument is evidence that at least one Christian is capable of logical errors and thus is an unreliable cognitive agent. Should we draw the same conclusions and deduce that Christianity is necessarily false?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evolution is a bit more complicated than that.

[b](2) The probability of our being reliable cognitive agents given these origins is low or, at best, inscrutable. But it cannot reasonably be thought to be high.
Is there any argument to back that up, or is it one of those 'feelings' type claims?
I personally think it is quite the opposite. If cogni ...[text shortened]... agent. Should we draw the same conclusions and deduce that Christianity is necessarily false?[/b]

…at best inscrutable…

I missed that! Let not the theist who draws upon that line mention any inscrutability of God then!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That's it? Seems like a lot of vacuous posturing.

For one to be able to validly play "the god card" one would need proof of the existence of God. I suspect he falls short there. Even if he were to provide a proof, it seems that Christianity does not support humans actually being "made in god's image" because if they were, they would not sin. Furthermo ...[text shortened]... ttributes to individual members of a group based on probabilities for that group.

I don't think this argument is intended as a direct attempt to prove the existence of god, it is just intended to undermine the naturalist account. I don't think it succeeds, for the reason that I have outlined (the flaw in 2).

I don't think your point about individuals and attributes of the group has much bite here. If 2) were correct then the naturalist account would mean that the probability would be vanishingly small that our evolved cognitive apparatus had reliability. You might argue that one or two individuals might buck the trend, to which the theist might reply in two ways:
1) You might as well argue that an exceptionally clever cat is likely to get a job at CERN one day.
2) Since most of us have unreliable cognition, how would we recognise the exceptional few, or come to an assessment that they were correct?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
(1) If naturalism is true, some evolutionary doctrine must also be true and our evolutionary history must be accounted for in terms of only random mutation and natural selection.

(2) The probability of our being reliable cognitive agents given these origins is low or, at best, inscrutable. But it cannot reasonably be thought to be high.

(3) Consequ ...[text shortened]... ly, to the extent that the naturalist is rational, they will give up their belief in naturalism.

edit: "(1) If naturalism is true, some evolutionary doctrine must also be true and our evolutionary history must be accounted for in terms of only random mutation and natural selection."

The theory of the evolution is under constant evaluation, and on the other hand naturalism does not offer explanations of natural events, like the origins of life, by means of supernatural causes. Therefore, in case there would be in the future efficient scientific facts and evidence that they would prove that the theory is false, the naturalists would keep up bringing up new naturalistic theories regarding the origins of life that they would still imply not supernatural causes.



edit: "(2) The probability of our being reliable cognitive agents given these origins is low or, at best, inscrutable. But it cannot reasonably be thought to be high."

Every week somebody wins the Lotto although the probability of her/ his win is extremely low. Every single second new beings are born around the dial although the probability of the birth of these specific personages is extremely low. So what?



edit: "(3) Consequently, the naturalist cannot reasonably hold to the belief that they are reliable cognitive agents."

Then one would ask why the so called “god” created (in accordance to his/ her own image etc) so highly problematic creatures. However, leaving the jokes aside, in fact we are quite well equipped with reliable cognitive agents -otherwise our species could not have survived this long.



edit: "(4) And since the reliability of their cognitive apparatus has been called into such grave question, naturalists are rationally bound to dismiss any belief accepted on the basis of trust in that apparatus."

Ha ha. Our cognitive apparatus and our science do work alright in our physical world. In fact, it is the reliability of the miscellaneous theologian doctrines that is always questioned, and therefore the theologians are the ones who have to dismiss any single belief of theirs that they accept on the basis of believing blindly their irrational to the hilt doctrines.



edit: "(5) Specifically, to the extent that the naturalist is rational, they will give up their belief in naturalism."

Nope. To the extend that the naturalists are rational, they will keep up building their miscellaneous naturalistic theories instead of explaining the miscellaneous natural events by means of supernatural causes.
😵

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I don't think this argument is intended as a direct attempt to prove the existence of god, it is just intended to undermine the naturalist account. I don't think it succeeds, for the reason that I have outlined (the flaw in 2).

I don't think your point about individuals and attributes of the group has much bite here. If 2) were correct then the natural ...[text shortened]... how would we recognise the exceptional few, or come to an assessment that they were correct?

It's not about individual humans.

I took #2 to be referring to humankind as a whole. Either humans, on the whole, are "reliable cognitive agents" or they aren't.

I also took it as saying that the odds of the process of evolution of producing "reliable cognitive agents" as being extremely low.

As such, the "group" is all possible planets with life where the process of evolution may or may not have produced "reliable cognitive agents". The "individual" is humankind.

The measuring stick is cognitive ability - not probability. I believe that the sum total of reliable knowledge amassed by humankind is sufficient reason to believe that humans, on the whole, are "reliable cognitive agents". The fact that there may be, for instance, billions upon billions of planets where "reliable cognitive agents" may not have been produced has no bearing on whether or not they were produced on this planet.

Hope this is clearer.