The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

[Punchy]

If anyone hasn't actually read Plantinga's paper, I recommend doing so now:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/phil...icles/plantinga_alvin/naturalism_defeated.pdf

 

[XTE]

If anyone hasn't actually read Plantinga's paper, I recommend doing so now:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/phil...icles/plantinga_alvin/naturalism_defeated.pdf

I saw you in this thread for an hour just to read this?

You didn't summarise it well enough? The paper you quoted didn't summarise it well enough? Sure seemed like a Creationist argument to me: completely nebulous....

 

[TeddyKGB]

If anyone hasn't actually read Plantinga's paper, I recommend doing so now:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/phil...icles/plantinga_alvin/naturalism_defeated.pdf

And I recommend not using this as a shield to avoid having to defend against the objections already brought to bear.

 

[XTE]

And I recommend not using this as a shield to avoid having to defend against the objections already brought to bear.

I feel like I need to meet you Teddy. I respected you at the tables on Pokerstars and I still respect you now.

Pay no attention to that Bible in my icon tray. I'm an Atheist, but I don't know how to change my icon to it.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I feel like I need to meet you Teddy. I respected you at the tables on Pokerstars and I still respect you now.

Pay no attention to that Bible in my icon tray. I'm an Atheist, but I don't know how to change my icon to it.

TANGENT

You guys play pokerstars? I only just started. Texas hold'em has really got a hold on me.

Oh I don't think you can change from a Christian icon but dont quote me on that.

TANGENT OVER

I read some the guys work and he seems to devote 95% his time bashing methodological naturalism generally and the ToE specifically. If he's demonstrated why its a low probability that an evolved brain can be trusted I've yet to see it

 

[XTE]

TANGENT

You guys play pokerstars? I only just started. Texas hold'em has really got a hold on me.

Oh I don't think you can change from a Christian icon but dont quote me on that.

TANGENT OVER

I read some the guys work and he seems to devote 95% his time bashing methodological naturalism generally and the ToE specifically. If he's demonstrated why its a low probability that an evolved brain can be tested I've yet to see it

It was my second job for 3 years. Made a killing on Pokerstars. I can't play anymore due to regulations, unless someone knows something I don't......... clue me in!

I'd love to jump back on it from time to time, but not as much as I use to. If Pokerstars will still let me play at fair limits(where people respect their money and play the way I want them to) then you can see me as Lil' Miguel. I have a midget Mexican wrestlers head as my icon. Hopefully see you there.

**Tangent all around...** LOL

 

[TeddyKGB]

I feel like I need to meet you Teddy. I respected you at the tables on Pokerstars and I still respect you now.

I'm still looking for that little rat Mike McD. Nut flush, my Russian rear end.

 

[XTE]

I'm not sure I remember him....

I remember you because of your name and icon being the same.

Good luck with that though...

 

[TeddyKGB]

I'm not sure I remember him....

I remember you because of your name and icon being the same.

Good luck with that though...

Ah, confusion.

I have never played on pokerstars. My username comes from a memorable, if over-the-top, character in the movie "Rounders."

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Because we have excellent reason to think that the underlying system of matter and energy operates according to consistent logical axioms and mathematical principles.

I think you're underestimating the power of Plantinga's argument. Two points,

First, just because the universe (we assume) operates according to logical axioms does in no way guarantee that any given creature's mind is going to be logical. We know, for example, that minds that produce illogical or false beliefs can exist. So there is nothing at all to say that a universe with logical axioms will produce creatures with a logical mind.

Second, if Plantinga's argument succeeds, you no longer have a reason to believe that the universe is, in fact, operating according to logical axioms and mathematical principles. All you have is your untrustworthy cognitive faculties telling you what seems to them to be true - but you can't trust them to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I see there are words in your post, but how they relate to the argument in the original post, I'm not sure.

OK, here is the "chance" argument again. Gotta love it even the 10,000 time you've heard it.

You should read more than just the short paragraph on Lewis, and read the whole of the first post. Preferably even reading the article by Plantinga.

IT ISN'T CHANCE OUTSIDE OF MUTATION! There is no chance in my choosing who to copulate with. It's a choice! Get it?

No, I don't get what you're saying. Probably because you don't "get" what Plantinga's argument is.

Besides, as an atheist, surely you believe that all that exists is in this universe. No ghosts, spirits, gods or angels. So then, given that all that exists is matter, how can there be any "choice". Surely your decision to copulate someone is in fact just a complex interaction of chemicals in your mind (or other parts) that causes you to act in a certain way. Maybe some uncertainty from quantum uncertainty, but then that's just chance, and nothing to do with choice. So what makes you think that you have any choice? Surely you're just operating according to chemical interactions as much as bacteria does. Your interactions just happen to have more layers of complexity.

The rest of your post seems unrelated.

 

[Asimov]

What reason would we have to trust a created brain?

 

[Punchy]

There might be a reason why Plantinga is one of the most well regarded living philosophers. That doesn't automatically make him right, but he's at least worth reading with an open mind.

 

[XTE]

Besides, as an atheist, surely you believe that all that exists is in this universe. No ghosts, spirits, gods or angels. So then, given that all that exists is matter, how can there be any "choice". Surely your decision to copulate someone is in fact just a complex interaction of chemicals in your mind (or other parts) that causes you to act in a certain way. Maybe some uncertainty from quantum uncertainty, but then that's just chance, and nothing to do with choice. So what makes you think that you have any choice? Surely you're just operating according to chemical interactions as much as bacteria does. Your interactions just happen to have more layers of complexity.

I'm humbled by this. Thank you for your words of wisdom and I apologize for putting things in simple terms.

Let me tell you how complexity comes about after this. Those chemical processes force me to look for a good set of chemical processes. Be it milk-production, birthing hips, or smooth-demeanor.

Thanks again, truer words were never said.

 

[XTE]

To summarize the summation of Plantinga argument:

"Plantinga's Argument

Alvin Plantinga's argument attempts to show that combining naturalism and evolution is self-defeating because under these assumptions the probability that humans have reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable.[2] The argument has been published by the Oxford University Press in Warrant and Proper Function, and a presentation of the argument can be found on the web[1]. A more recent and extensive discussion is found in Naturalism Defeated? Cornell (2002), in which Plantinga sets out the argument, 11 philosophers comment and Plantinga responds."

Chance, probability, whatever....

Bolded for ya. Now, how did I stray again exactly? I question your confusion. Anyone else confused?

Took the liberty:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/chance

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Chance, probability, whatever....

Bolded for ya. Now, how did I stray again exactly? I question your confusion. Anyone else confused?

In arguing, there are two types of arguments - deductive and inductive. With a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily flows from the premises. In an inductive argument, the conclusion is probable given the premises.

For example, I might say, "I think George Bush exists, because I've seen him on the news, I've heard the testimony of other media sources that he exists. Therefore, he exists". This is an inductive argument which does not guarantee the truth of the proposition "George Bush exists", but rather makes it highly probable it is true. Other premises added to the argument might make that probability lower.

To call this argument by Plantinga "The Chance Argument" that you've heard 10,000 times before is misleading. This is no more of a chance argument than any other inductive inference, and so shouldn't be accorded special status. It needs to be considered on the basis of the probability of its conclusion. I agree with Plantinga that the probability of R given N&E&C is low or inscrutable. Your task, if you think he is wrong, is not merely to call this "The Chance Argument". You need to provide additional premises that are not question begging, to show why he is wrong. Perhaps you want to show him that his argument doesn't have an undefeated defeater for naturalism? Perhaps you want to show that in fact R is highly probable. As his argument stands, though, the probability of R seems low.

 

[TeddyKGB]

First, just because the universe (we assume) operates according to logical axioms does in no way guarantee that any given creature's mind is going to be logical. We know, for example, that minds that produce illogical or false beliefs can exist. So there is nothing at all to say that a universe with logical axioms will produce creatures with a logical mind.

There doesn't have to be, at least not a priori. If the world operates as it appears to, evolutionary algorithms will inexorably produce organisms more and more capable of understanding how the world works.

Second, if Plantinga's argument succeeds, you no longer have a reason to believe that the universe is, in fact, operating according to logical axioms and mathematical principles. All you have is your untrustworthy cognitive faculties telling you what seems to them to be true - but you can't trust them to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

This, of course, undermines the very system of logic which Plantinga uses to formulate his argument. I don't think even Plantinga takes it that far.

 

[XTE]

In arguing, there are two types of arguments - deductive and inductive. With a deductive argument, the conclusion necessarily flows from the premises. In an inductive argument, the conclusion is probable given the premises.

For example, I might say, "I think George Bush exists, because I've seen him on the news, I've heard the testimony of other media sources that he exists. Therefore, he exists". This is an inductive argument which does not guarantee the truth of the proposition "George Bush exists", but rather makes it highly probable it is true. Other premises added to the argument might make that probability lower.

To call this argument by Plantinga "The Chance Argument" that you've heard 10,000 times before is misleading. This is no more of a chance argument than any other inductive inference, and so shouldn't be accorded special status. It needs to be considered on the basis of the probability of its conclusion. I agree with Plantinga that the probability of R given N&E&C is low or inscrutable. Your task, if you think he is wrong, is not merely to call this "The Chance Argument". You need to provide additional premises that are not question begging, to show why he is wrong. Perhaps you want to show him that his argument doesn't have an undefeated defeater for naturalism? Perhaps you want to show that in fact R is highly probable. As his argument stands, though, the probability of R seems low.

I am going to do this, but tell me is the equation really:

(Proposition that our faculties are "reliable")/(Naturalism*(belief that humanity followed the evolutionary process))?

Secondly, are these the only variables?

If you can answer those two in the negative versus me then I will answer you at soonest possible. Keep in mind, I'm about to eat dinner and watch my friends band play in Houston here pretty quick.

I can't wait to answer your question.

Plantinga defines:

• N as naturalism
• E as the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine
• R as the proposition that our faculties are "reliable", where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is "reliable" if the great bulk of its deliverances are true. He specifically cites a thermometer stuck at 72 degrees placed in an environment which happened to be at 72 degrees as an example of something that is not "reliable" in this sense[5]

and suggests that P(R/N&E) is low.
Plantinga's argument begins with the observation that our beliefs can only have evolutionary consequences if they affect behaviour. To put this another way, natural selection does not directly select for true beliefs, but rather for advantageous behaviours.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

There doesn't have to be, at least not a priori. If the world operates as it appears to, evolutionary algorithms will inexorably produce organisms more and more capable of understanding how the world works.

This touches on the heart of Plantinga's argument. He argues the very opposite of what you're saying - that not only is it *not* definite that intelligent organisms will arise, but it is in fact highly improbable. So to counter this point, I direct you to Plantinga's argument.

This, of course, undermines the very system of logic which Plantinga uses to formulate his argument. I don't think even Plantinga takes it that far.

He does. His argument is saying that
1. If naturalism is true, we can't trust the beliefs of our mind.
2. Naturalism is a belief
3. Therefore, we can't trust our belief in naturalism

We have what Plantinga calls an undefeated defeater for naturalism. It is undefeated because any argument you might use to attack the defeater will itself be a belief, and that belief will be defeated as well (premise 1). For example, you might say "Even if it is improbable, we humans are actually intelligent", but then this would be a belief, and therefore we couldn't trust it.

Plantinga wants to show (in his main argument) that if naturalism is true, then it is very highly probable that
we would not be rational creatures. We might think of ourselves as logical or rational, we would have no reason to believe it.

 

[XTE]

2. Naturalism is a belief

Naturalism is all we have and all that INTERFERS with our lives. There are studies on prayers.

You may want to put me in the belief basket where you reside. But it isn't belief.

Will I be wasting my time with you?