We cannot yet take a position on the current existence of God.

[Athée]

This is not quite true. Ostensious definition is the act of pointing at something in reality. Many times when someone asks: "what do you mean by 'red ball'"? All we can do it point to a red ball. Here words are directly attached to their referents and no further words are needed.

So at this post in the back and forth about Plantinga it seems to me that Tree of Life is to some extent making the very point I would in a refutation of Plantinga. The claim Plantinga makes seems to be that evolution has no need to select for true beliefs and so we should doubt our current notion of truth which includes naturalism. This is obviously a simplified version The problem I see here is that our models will correspond with reality or not. I would claim that there is indeed an evolutionary advantage to having true beliefs. For example... "hey look over there I believe that is a beautiful and odly shaped orange and black striped flower... Oh dear it was a tiger and I am dead... No reproducing for me " vs Hey look I believe that is a tiger... Time to run... And get to some sweet sweet reproducing later". The more our beliefs correspond to reality the more likely they are to be selected for in evolution. We should therefore expect, on evolution, that many of our beliefs (not all) should cohere rather precisely to reality, that is, that they should be true.
Thoughts?

 

[Tree of Life]

So at this post in the back and forth about Plantinga it seems to me that Tree of Life is to some extent making the very point I would in a refutation of Plantinga. The claim Plantinga makes seems to be that evolution has no need to select for true beliefs and so we should doubt our current notion of truth which includes naturalism. This is obviously a simplified version The problem I see here is that our models will correspond with reality or not. I would claim that there is indeed an evolutionary advantage to having true beliefs. For example... "hey look over there I believe that is a beautiful and odly shaped orange and black striped flower... Oh dear it was a tiger and I am dead... No reproducing for me " vs Hey look I believe that is a tiger... Time to run... And get to some sweet sweet reproducing later". The more our beliefs correspond to reality the more likely they are to be selected for in evolution. We should therefore expect, on evolution, that many of our beliefs (not all) should cohere rather precisely to reality, that is, that they should be true.
Thoughts?

EEAN is highly nuanced. Plantinga's point is that it's possible that naturalistic evolution has created minds that function to get our bodies in the right place at the right time but may not hold any true beliefs. It may sound unlikely, but it is at least theoretically possible that what we think is "true" is nothing near to what reality is actually like but that our beliefs still function to help us survive.

 

[Athée]

EEAN is highly nuanced. Plantinga's point is that it's possible that naturalistic evolution has created minds that function to get our bodies in the right place at the right time but may not hold any true beliefs. It may sound unlikely, but it is at least theoretically possible that what we think is "true" is nothing near to what reality is actually like but that our beliefs still function to help us survive.

Indeed I understand the point being made and I am glad to see you put it in the category of possible rather than probable. It is possible that every belief we have is false but confers a survival advantage accidentally while simultaneously not opening us up to any potential harm that might end with us being selected against. The problem of course is that this is wildly unlikely especially considering the alternative which is that the closer your beliefs match reality the more likely you are to make coherent decisions that increase your odds of surviving until you are able to reproduce. For me Plantinga's argument is sound and valid but so lacking in force as to be inconsequential.

 

[Tree of Life]

Indeed I understand the point being made and I am glad to see you put it in the category of possible rather than probable. It is possible that every belief we have is false but confers a survival advantage accidentally while simultaneously not opening us up to any potential harm that might end with us being selected against. The problem of course is that this is wildly unlikely especially considering the alternative which is that the closer your beliefs match reality the more likely you are to make coherent decisions that increase your odds of surviving until you are able to reproduce. For me Plantinga's argument is sound and valid but so lacking in force as to be inconsequential.

Maybe so. But I think that Plantinga wants you to come to that conclusion. In my view, his argument is postulating an absurd situation - that we would have no true beliefs and yet still be able to survive. But his suggestion is that Naturalistic Evolution does not favor true beliefs - only right behavior. The two are not necessarily dependent. So NE alone gives us no reason to suppose that our beliefs are true. Yet we know that our beliefs are true. So there must be some other source of true beliefs - i.e. God.

To really defeat EAAN one would have to demonstrate that right behavior (behavior promoting survival) absolutely depends upon having true beliefs. This may be more difficult than it seems.

 

[Athée]

Maybe so. But I think that Plantinga wants you to come to that conclusion. In my view, his argument is postulating an absurd situation - that we would have no true beliefs and yet still be able to survive. But his suggestion is that Naturalistic Evolution does not favor true beliefs - only right behavior. The two are not necessarily dependent. So NE alone gives us no reason to suppose that our beliefs are true. Yet we know that our beliefs are true. So there must be some other source of true beliefs - i.e. God.

To really defeat EAAN one would have to demonstrate that right behavior (behavior promoting survival) absolutely depends upon having true beliefs. This may be more difficult than it seems.

I see a little better what you were getting at now. I still don't agree though You said we know our beliefs are true. How do we know that? Even if that were the case and our beliefs happen to be true and we can know this, why is God a necessary explanation. Granted an invisible, magical all powerful and all knowing entity can always be deployed as a sufficient explanation but I fail to see how it is a necessary one.
You also suggested that it might be very difficult to prove that having beliefs cohere to reality confers a survival advantage. I agree that it would be difficult if not impossible to prove in an absolute sense. Certainly there are counter examples to be found. However, I would encourage you to write two lists of say 20 beliefs each. Time yourself as you first write a list of beliefs that if they cohere to reality will confer a survival advantage. For example. That is large cliff over there. This helps me make the choice not to walk off it and die. In the other list put down beliefs that might not cohere to reality but confer a survival advantage none the less and don't also make us prone to maladaptive behaviours in other situations. My guess is that you will find that first list much easier to write. The reason of course is that the better your model of the world matches the reality of the world, the more consistently you will make advantageous decisions. Plantinga is right to suggest that we can have false beliefs that confer advantage, it is ridiculous to suppose otherwise, but does little to rebut the obvious explanation of this. Evolution selects much more frequently in favour of beliefs that align with reality than it does for beliefs that do not. The fact that it is also the case that evolution can occasionally can select for a false belief that is beneficial does not negate the entire body of selection for true beliefs. Instead what it does is teaches us to be cautious of accepting our beliefs at face value, encouraging us to test them rigorously against reality so as to determine if they cohere or not.

 

[Tree of Life]

No doubt that true beliefs promote survival. But to defeat EAAN one would have to demonstrate how surviving depends upon having true beliefs. In other words, it would have to be shown that it is impossible to survive without true beliefs.

 

[Athée]

No doubt that true beliefs promote survival. But to defeat EAAN one would have to demonstrate how surviving depends upon having true beliefs. In other words, it would have to be shown that it is impossible to survive without true beliefs.

Again I don't think we need to defeat the EAAN. It has so little force that it is not really all that useful. Remember that it does not argue that our beliefs are false or true simply that in some cases it is possible that a false belief could be beneficial. This is not a reason to doubt the veracity of our beliefs which we verify through experiment, observation and collaboration, rather as I have said it is a reason to check our beliefs as rigorously as possible. Thus the EAAN doesn't actually do much to undermine naturalism, at best it reminds us to be cautious in accepting our beliefs and at worst it is true in such a trivial sense that it is entirely lacking any force.
What work do you see the EAAN doing?

 

[Hawkins]

I make the assumption that the Bible is the only source of information at our disposal which may indicate that the Christian God exists here and now. Seeing a physical world around us simply indicates that he may have created this world a while back, but does not indicate that he is still with us.

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Due to this doubt and inability to verify, I propose that the default position should be that "We do not know for sure", and that those that say there is a God and those that say there is no God, need to justify their position.

Kindly show me the fault in my thought process.

The point is, you can apply the above to any daily news you haven't yet confirm, to any history happened in the past.

Your attitude here however is not the human attitude towards human history which they can hardly confirm. Human don't even bother to confirm anything before they get to the facts broadcast by the media. 99% humans don't even bother to confirm whether earth is actually revolving around the sun.

You are confused about how humans reach the different types of truths. You don't even know that different kinds of truths are approached by humans differently. In a nutshell, they rely heavily on believing what is said but without confirmation by themselves.

 

[Athée]

The point is, you can apply the above to any daily news you haven't yet confirm, to any history happened in the past.

Your attitude here however is not the human attitude towards human history which they can hardly confirm. Human don't even bother to confirm anything before they get to the facts broadcast by the media. 99% humans don't even bother to confirm whether earth is actually revolving around the sun.

You are confused about how humans reach the different types of truths. You don't even know that different kinds of truths are approached by humans differently. In a nutshell, they rely heavily on believing what is said but without confirmation by themselves.

It seems like you may be talking past each other a bit here. I agree with you that humans tend towards credulity and generally there is good reason for this. It would be impossible to master all the possible disciplines of knowledge in order to verify every premise of every belief first hand. So we rely on experts to tell us what they think about various subjects. Evidently some sources are more reliable than others and so it is up to us to vet our sources as best we can. That said the other post was also correct about the default position and the burden of proof. The default position for most claims is to withold belief until the burden of proof has been met. This is why I would never claim outright to know that no God exists. I think you can make a decent case that Yahweh doesn't exist or has been inaccurately described but to say no God exists anywhere would require me to prove it, which of course I can't do. Likewise anyone who makes the positive claim that God does exist has a burden of proof to demonstrate why they believe this.
That said in our everyday lives we do not always subject claims to this rigorous process. The reason I believe is that most claims don't truly affect us in any way and don't ask anything of us. If you tell me you had eggs for breakfast today I would be inclined to believe you even though I have very little evidence for that claim, simply because it doesn't really matter. If however you claim that you are in fact an agent from my bank and need my credit card information, then I will require more evidence than I did for the claim about the eggs. So when people claim that I should worship a God and live according to its precepts they need to meet the burden of proof just like we should for any claim but I am more likely to actually require that evidence because the truth of the claim will have a profound impact on my life.
Thoughts?

 

[Hawkins]

It seems like you may be talking past each other a bit here. I agree with you that humans tend towards credulity and generally there is good reason for this. It would be impossible to master all the possible disciplines of knowledge in order to verify every premise of every belief first hand. So we rely on experts to tell us what they think about various subjects. Evidently some sources are more reliable than others and so it is up to us to vet our sources as best we can. That said the other post was also correct about the default position and the burden of proof. The default position for most claims is to withold belief until the burden of proof has been met. This is why I would never claim outright to know that no God exists. I think you can make a decent case that Yahweh doesn't exist or has been inaccurately described but to say no God exists anywhere would require me to prove it, which of course I can't do. Likewise anyone who makes the positive claim that God does exist has a burden of proof to demonstrate why they believe this.
That said in our everyday lives we do not always subject claims to this rigorous process. The reason I believe is that most claims don't truly affect us in any way and don't ask anything of us. If you tell me you had eggs for breakfast today I would be inclined to believe you even though I have very little evidence for that claim, simply because it doesn't really matter. If however you claim that you are in fact an agent from my bank and need my credit card information, then I will require more evidence than I did for the claim about the eggs. So when people claim that I should worship a God and live according to its precepts they need to meet the burden of proof just like we should for any claim but I am more likely to actually require that evidence because the truth of the claim will have a profound impact on my life.
Thoughts?

Humans rely heavily on putting faith in a small group of human whom we believe that they are holding the truth. This process is called human witnessing.

And no human witnessing can be made more legitimate than those direct witnesses martyred themselves for what is said and done. Today we have video and audio records to enhance our witnessing though.

Now what do you expect? Could you elaborate a bit more on what else can be done?

There's none better that can be done. That's the point!

 

[Athée]

Humans rely heavily on putting faith in a small group of human whom we believe that they are holding the truth. This process is called human witnessing.

And no human witnessing can be made more legitimate than those direct witnesses martyred themselves for what is said and done. Today we have video and audio records to enhance our witnessing though.

Now what do you expect? Could you elaborate a bit more on what else can be done?

There's none better that can be done. That's the point!

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the anonymous writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses and therefore I should accept their accounts as true? Or are you saying that they witnessed it themselves and so that is the most convincing evidence for them but not for us since we haven't had that same witness experience? Or maybe you are saying that unreliable testimonials are the best we can hope for given how long ago the alleged events happened and so I should be willing to accept based on weak evidence because that is all there is?
Or perhaps I have entirely missed the boat and you can clarify another option for me

 

[Alla27]

I make the assumption that the Bible is the only source of information at our disposal which may indicate that the Christian God exists here and now. Seeing a physical world around us simply indicates that he may have created this world a while back, but does not indicate that he is still with us.

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

Due to this doubt and inability to verify, I propose that the default position should be that "We do not know for sure", and that those that say there is a God and those that say there is no God, need to justify their position.

Kindly show me the fault in my thought process.

There is no any fault in your thought process. There is a reason why we can not remember God and have perfect knowledge of Him in this life. The reason is this: we have to live by faith. When we live by faith there is room for growing. When we have perfect knowledge of God there is no more room for growing.

 

[Athée]

There is no any fault in your thought process. There is a reason why we can not remember God and have perfect knowledge of Him in this life. The reason is this: we have to live by faith. When we live by faith there is room for growing. When we have perfect knowledge of God there is no more room for growing.

Unless of course you are Adam and Eve, the Israelites or doubting Thomas or the apostles or the 500 other random people...if you believe the Bible then faith was not important for any of them. So why is it important now?

 

[Alla27]

Unless of course you are Adam and Eve, the Israelites or doubting Thomas or the apostles or the 500 other random people...if you believe the Bible then faith was not important for any of them. So why is it important now?

They didn't have perfect knowledge of God. We will have perfect knowledge of God only when we face Him after resurrection. Until then we still have to believe.
Thomas still had to believe that Jesus was God and not something else.

 

[juvenissun]

I propose that we have no way of verifying whether the contents in the Bible are indeed correct, true or even complete. They could very well just be stories made up by men over the centuries, or not. We simply don't know for sure.

No. Human is not able to make up this story.
Human is reasonable. This story is not a reasonable one.

 

[Gumph]

The point is, you can apply the above to any daily news you haven't yet confirm, to any history happened in the past.

Your attitude here however is not the human attitude towards human history which they can hardly confirm. Human don't even bother to confirm anything before they get to the facts broadcast by the media. 99% humans don't even bother to confirm whether earth is actually revolving around the sun.

You are confused about how humans reach the different types of truths. You don't even know that different kinds of truths are approached by humans differently. In a nutshell, they rely heavily on believing what is said but without confirmation by themselves.

I think I am in full agreement with what you wrote. Where we will possibly differ is that I feel that the tremendous claims made by Christianity require much more personal verification than anything we see on the news does.

 

[Gumph]

And no human witnessing can be made more legitimate than those direct witnesses martyred themselves for what is said and done. Today we have video and audio records to enhance our witnessing though.

Now what do you expect? Could you elaborate a bit more on what else can be done?

There's none better that can be done. That's the point!

How about personal experience. That is definitely better than hearsay. I would say fallible, gullible, sinful, biased humans are a terrible source for legitimate information, especially when they know there is no way we can verify their claims.

 

[Gumph]

There is no any fault in your thought process. There is a reason why we can not remember God and have perfect knowledge of Him in this life. The reason is this: we have to live by faith. When we live by faith there is room for growing. When we have perfect knowledge of God there is no more room for growing.

Of course you can grow without faith. If he could at least remove any doubt about his existence, then we could begin with the growing stuff. Living a perfect life is a long way from knowing he exists. This leaves plenty of room for growth.

 

[Gumph]

No. Human is not able to make up this story.
Human is reasonable. This story is not a reasonable one.

Humans have made up many fantastical stories over the years. Of course we are able to make up unreasonable stories, and humans are most certainly not always reasonable.

 

[juvenissun]

Humans have made up many fantastical stories over the years. Of course we are able to make up unreasonable stories, and humans are most certainly not always reasonable.

You can make it up. But who will listen? Who will remember it 100 years later? Do you know any unreasonable book, TV program, or movie?
If you have one, please share it with me. I like to see how unreasonable it could be.