The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

[Apollo Rhetor]

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))?

It's not really an equation. In plain english, it's the probability of rational cognitive faculties given naturalism and "that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine".

Secondly, are these the only variables?

It seems that in a more recent version of Plantinga's argument he dropped C, so yes, as it stands these are the only two premises.

If you can answer those two in the negative versus me then I will answer you at soonest possible.

Not sure what you're saying here about "in the negative versus me".

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

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?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You don't think that believing naturalism is true is a belief?

I believe that I'm a human. That is a true belief.


What's your point?

 

[XTE]

It's not really an equation. In plain english, it's the probability of rational cognitive faculties given naturalism and "that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary doctrine".

If it's a probability he arrived at, he should have an equation. Put it in numbers, that should be pretty easy. Let us have a look at the variables leading up to the advent of what someone might define as "intelligence" so that we can weigh them ourselves.

Nebulous....sounds smart....but really dumb.

I'll still argue it further, but it'll have to be tomorrow.

Not sure what you're saying here about "in the negative versus me".

We are on different teams here, you can tell me only that you disagree with both points. That's in the negative.

 

[XTE]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You don't think that believing naturalism is true is a belief?

I believe that I'm a human. That is a true belief.


What's your point?

Quit saying believe, when you can say know with relative assurance.

Let's leave believe where there is a complete lack of evidence. That's how I understand it.

I don't even have to use the word belief, it's very liberating.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Quit saying believe, when you can say know with relative assurance.

Let's leave believe where there is a complete lack of evidence. That's how I understand it.

I don't even have to use the word belief, it's very liberating.

If we're having a philosophical discussion, we should use the terms as philosophers use them:
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b2.htm#bel

But if you're adamant that belief should not be used as philosophers use it, it matters not. We'll just have to replace the word "belief in Naturalism" in Plantinga's arguments to some other term that expresses the idea that you hold the proposition "Naturalism is true" in your mind. It is that which is at stake here - whether your holding of the proposition "Naturalism is true" is rational.

 

[XTE]

"Naturalism is true"

Let's not use "belief." It wreaks....

Let's also try and change Naturalism is true into Nature is all that interferes with us. That could be a good build up to Theory of Mind.

 

[XTE]

For example: I KNOW that two plus three equals five, I THINK that Bill Clinton was President of the United States in 1995, and I HOPE that I will live another ten years.

Murky-waters indeed.

 

[TeddyKGB]

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.

I am not saying that intelligent organisms will arise inexorably. I am saying that intelligent organisms that arise in a rational universe, and have access only to limited resources, inexorably will be subject to evolutionary pressures. And those organisms that are better at manipulating their environments - those that understand their environment better - will out-compete those with poorer understanding.

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.

Premise 1 fails because he doesn't understand naturalism. Philosophical naturalism takes it as axiomatic that matter and energy exist and behave according to certain mathematical principles. If he wants to go back further than that, then he is on his own; there are no calculations that can give an a priori probability for this natural universe.

 

[RecentConvert]

Let's get back to the main point -

What reason would we have to trust an evolved brain?

It made it this far, didn't it?

If it successfully evolved in this world, is there a reason to doubt that it correctly understands the world in which it successfully evolved? Seriously, I find myself asking the opposite question: how can we not trust an evolved brain?

 

[DrkSdBls]

What I can't understand is how no one can see just how self-defeating Plantinga's arguments are. He makes the claim that, if the human brain evolved naturally, there is a low chance that it would be developed enough to function Logcially and Rationally.

But, Logic and Reason are completely subjective concepts; That which is measured only by a preset standard that is derived from our Minds.

Whether or not our Minds are Designed or Evolved, we are still using the same Standard of Reason and Logic. If our minds are Evolved from lower lifeforms, then that is the Mind we have to work with and, regardless of whether we can Trust it or not, it is still the highest intelligence that we have to draw our rationality.

But, if our minds were Creatively designed, then nothing is changed. We still have the same Standard of Logic and Reason and so if would still be just as untrustworthy as a naturalistically evolved mind.

Plantinga’s argument fails in this one aspect. When he draws into question the Evolved Brain’s trustworthness then he’ll also has to question the Creatively Designed Brain’s Trustworthness as well because either one would would have to function on the same standard as the other in order to explain our current level of Logic and Reasoning ablities. It is this same rational abilities that Plantinga is attempting to use to draw into question our Logic and Reasoning Abilities.

Basically, he’s undermining his own argument by saying that we can’t trust his Logic!

 

[XTE]

tyreth, do you disagree with me?

 

[Osiris]

C. S. Lewis couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag to save his life. I will not take the time to argue this.

Lewis was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, the most well read man of his generation, an author of over thirty books, and the most formidable opponent you could have in debate.

Let's get back to the main point -

What reason would we have to trust an evolved brain?

Punchy, your reasoning is that we can't trust things if they came about by chance, but we can trust those that were created. This is rather illogical...

Punchy, what connects something that came about by chance with untrustworthiness?

And it seems to me that CS Lewis was guilty of poisoning the well by trying to compare human intelligence with that of a monkey... yeah, we are related, but we didn't evolve from monkeys... and i don't think monkeys build computers and talk through the internet.

So, yeah, I would agree with RecoveringProphet in what he said...

 

[flatworm]

Let's get back to the main point -

What reason would we have to trust an evolved brain?

Brains that lead to their owner's early demise don't pass on their genes. We therefore expect human brains to be good at certain things, like interpreting everyday sensory information. Since we are social animals, we also expect them to be finely honed to decode social interaction. A little bit of elementary reasoning is also essential to survival.

These things are expected of an evolved brain, and in fact they're exactly what we see.

Now, when it comes to things like plumbing metaphysical truths or the structure of nature at scales beyond human experience, we have no evolutionary expectation that the brain will perform well and indeed that's exactly what we see. Only by erecting all this extra error-correcting machinery we call "logic" and "science" do we manage to bootstrap our biological limitations up to higher levels of understanding.

So Plantigna's argument fails to defeat Naturalism because of the manifest fact that humans are very often wrong, even about things they hold to be certain. The 'Divine spark of understanding' just isn't there. We often like to imagine we can intuit deep truths about the universe, but the truth is we can't.

 

[FishFace]

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.

If we were going by reputation, I would like to mention that Plantinga's the culprit behind one of the modern versions of the Ontological argument, and it was, in my humble opinion, as farcical as the rest, but dressed up with symbolic logic. (I have an essay on it somewhere if anyone wants it)

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I am not saying that intelligent organisms will arise inexorably. I am saying that intelligent organisms that arise in a rational universe, and have access only to limited resources, inexorably will be subject to evolutionary pressures. And those organisms that are better at manipulating their environments - those that understand their environment better - will out-compete those with poorer understanding.

Plantinga argues against this premise. In fact, Plantina also argues that true belief is not even necessary. What is necessary (if beliefs are causally related to behaviour) is that they move you in the correct way. And a belief does not have to be true, or even close to true, in order to do that. Stating the above is not sufficient to demonstrate it. I already know that you believe the above to be true - what you need to do is explain why you think Plantinga is wrong.

Premise 1 fails because he doesn't understand naturalism. Philosophical naturalism takes it as axiomatic that matter and energy exist and behave according to certain mathematical principles. If he wants to go back further than that, then he is on his own; there are no calculations that can give an a priori probability for this natural universe.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is an objection to Plantinga's argument. Plantinga is assuming that in the naturalist's universe matter and energy do operate "according to certain mathematical principles". You might need to explain this more for me.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

It made it this far, didn't it?

If it successfully evolved in this world, is there a reason to doubt that it correctly understands the world in which it successfully evolved? Seriously, I find myself asking the opposite question: how can we not trust an evolved brain?

If you read Plantinga's argument, you will see why he thinks that we have good reason to doubt our own mind's understanding.

But, Logic and Reason are completely subjective concepts; That which is measured only by a preset standard that is derived from our Minds.

We humans are prone to think that rationality and logic are not subjective attributes of our own reasoning, but are in fact universal laws - laws that even God, if He exists, is subject to.

Plantinga’s argument fails in this one aspect. When he draws into question the Evolved Brain’s trustworthness then he’ll also has to question the Creatively Designed Brain’s Trustworthness as well because either one would would have to function on the same standard as the other in order to explain our current level of Logic and Reasoning ablities. It is this same rational abilities that Plantinga is attempting to use to draw into question our Logic and Reasoning Abilities.

Your argument sounds a bit confused. I'm not sure why you think that a designed mind would use the same reason and logic as an evolved mind. The former could be designed to understand the true laws of logic, while the latter could (and probably would) generate false beliefs. You state earlier that Logic and Reason are subjective concepts. Here you say that a designed mind and an evolved mind would need to be the same. Which is it?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

tyreth, do you disagree with me?

Sorry, I thought you were going to write an objection to Plantinga, and I was waiting for that.

Which bit do you want to know if I disagree with? If you're referring to word definitions, I'm not completely happy with it. It causes more confusion to use words in different ways to what they normally mean. If we're not going to use the word belief, we should use another term such as proposition. Eg, we could say, "You hold the proposition 'Naturalism is true' as true", and "I hold the proposition that 'God exists' as true".

What we're interested in for Plantinga's arguments is those things in our mind that we hold as either true or false. Propositions, beliefs, whatever. We need a word to identify those things, if you don't want to use the word 'belief'.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Punchy, your reasoning is that we can't trust things if they came about by chance, but we can trust those that were created. This is rather illogical...

Why? On the face of it, it seems to me completely reasonable to assume that we could trust a mind that was designed, and distrust one that was evolved by chance and natural selection.

Punchy, what connects something that came about by chance with untrustworthiness?

If you read Plantinga's argument, you will see the answer to this question. If you want to respond to the argument, you could at least read it.

And it seems to me that CS Lewis was guilty of poisoning the well by trying to compare human intelligence with that of a monkey... yeah, we are related, but we didn't evolve from monkeys... and i don't think monkeys build computers and talk through the internet.

It was Charles Darwin who spoke about the monkey, not Lewis. Even though we don't descend from monkeys, the argument stands as Darwin expressed it:

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?

(Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.)
It only matters that we descended from a lower animal, not that the animal be a monkey. Darwin was just using the monkey as an example of a lower animal.

 

[XTE]

Sorry, I thought you were going to write an objection to Plantinga, and I was waiting for that.

Which bit do you want to know if I disagree with? If you're referring to word definitions, I'm not completely happy with it. It causes more confusion to use words in different ways to what they normally mean. If we're not going to use the word belief, we should use another term such as proposition. Eg, we could say, "You hold the proposition 'Naturalism is true' as true", and "I hold the proposition that 'God exists' as true".

What we're interested in for Plantinga's arguments is those things in our mind that we hold as either true or false. Propositions, beliefs, whatever. We need a word to identify those things, if you don't want to use the word 'belief'.

I thought I made myself pretty clear in asking you to explicitly disagree with me on those 2 points I mentioned in that past post. I'll take it that you disagree.

Belief is a pointless term, there is not a more redundant term I can think of. Right now I can't think of much though because I stayed at that festival at Notsuoh's till 5 a.m. this morning. Car got towed, blah, blah, blah, but the bands were amazing. Anyways, I'm so tired, give me a day. I can respond to this at work tomorrow.

Recuperating....

 

[TeddyKGB]

Plantinga argues against this premise. In fact, Plantina also argues that true belief is not even necessary. What is necessary (if beliefs are causally related to behaviour) is that they move you in the correct way. And a belief does not have to be true, or even close to true, in order to do that. Stating the above is not sufficient to demonstrate it. I already know that you believe the above to be true - what you need to do is explain why you think Plantinga is wrong.

Plantinga is wrong because he treats individual beliefs as self-contained entities, as if they have no subconscious (i.e. emotive and instinctual) precursors. Cognitive psychology very much disputes this interpretation.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is an objection to Plantinga's argument. Plantinga is assuming that in the naturalist's universe matter and energy do operate "according to certain mathematical principles". You might need to explain this more for me.

It's possible I am misunderstanding. I don't think this is central to the debate in any case.