I've been listening to the recent Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero debate vs. Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg. Not a bad debate, in my estimation, maybe one of the best that the ID vs evolution conflict has produced. Unfortunately, that's not saying much - I find public disputations of this issue are usually flaccid, fairly boring retreads of the same old garbage. One of the worst debates I've ever heard is one I attended personally, between Michael Ruse and William Dembski at the local university. Dembski finished his opener and I thought, "I cannot imagine Ruse's could be any worse." But it was.
This one, fortunately, incorporates a lot of material from Meyer's very good book Signature in the Cell as well as discussions of what seems to this layman to be fairly cutting-edge research. Meyer also pwns Shermer's blind "God-of-the-gaps" canard in real time, which was fun, especially since Shermer went on a few minutes later to spew out a steaming pile of Darwinism-of-the-gaps.
Anyway, the audience Q&A was refreshing b/c the moderator had audience members write down their questions and send them up front during the intermission, and the mod read them. This is the best way to go about things, even though the mod misread and thus fundamentally neutered the question I sent to Mitch Pacwa a couple of years ago.
I was very happy to hear that an audience member asked Michael Shermer what amounts to a variant of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (see more simplified version here, courtesy of a friend of mine) (or listen to the lecture or see some lecture outline notes) around the 1 hr, 39 minute mark.
Moderator: Do you believe that reason is an emergent property of molecules and if so, why should we trust anything you say?
Shermer and others laugh.
Shermer: Well, first of all you shouldn't. The first principle of skepticism is be skeptical of the skeptics. Um, so obviously, but I think there's something deeper in the question on - to what extent should we trust some kind of inductive process practiced by science or reason or logic or something like that?
Well, um, as opposed to what? As I started off saying, there's only 2 explanations; there's the scientific one based on reason and logic and evidence, and then there's everything else. And the one that works the best just pragmatically is science. You want to get a spacecraft to Mars, you use astronomy, not astrology. Just b/c it works is the best answer to that question.
That's the best that this nationally-recognised author, speaker, and debater, the editor of Skeptic magazine, can muster? A string of begged questions and "um, duh" assertions? Now, I don't mean to set the standard unreasonably high here - that's all PZ Myers could come up with as well.
I'd set the over/under for the wager "number of seconds has Michael Shermer spent pondering a very challenging argument put forward by well-known and widely-published professional philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga with respect to Shermer's own worldview and indeed his very livelihood?" at 3. Pitiful performance.
228 comments:
1 – 200 of 228 Newer› Newest»The key premise of EAAN is that reasoning (or discovering truth) has no fitness value from the perspective of natural selection. The prey who fears pain and rightly believes that a certain predator may bring about pain has no advantage over another member of the herd who fears objects completely at random. This is plainly silly.
Plantinga deals with that in his tiger/caveman example.
If by "deals with" you mean "tosses off pointless speculation without due consideration" then yeah, it's dealt with.
Really, though, you cannot seriously expect this argument to go through. Collections of true beliefs are *obviously* better at, say, pain avoidance, than collections of false beliefs.
Not if they lead to behavior that enables survival. That's Plantinga's whole point.
Given instinctive desires to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, it is hard to see how any set of false beliefs about the world encountered by animals might possibly compete with a comparably large set of true beliefs about the world. True beliefs allow one to avoid those things that might truly prove painful (e.g. predators) and to attain those those which might truly prove pleasurabl. (e.g. prey). False beliefs cannot hope to compete, except by fortunate happenstance.
Well, technically speaking, the question he brought up is the "Argument from Reason," which is somewhat related to, but distinct from EAAN.
The Argument form Reason claims that Naturalism is false because we have no reason to trust "rationality" that comes from non-rational matter.
EAAN claims that Naturalism is false because Evolution doesn't select for true beliefs.
It should be noted, however, that both of these arguments could be successful and for evolution to still be true, just naturalism would be false, so it wasn't really relevant to the debate.
However, I agree with you that generally the quality of these highly publicized ID debates are of poor quality (see also the recent one between Ayala and Craig). I think is partly because "evolution" and "ID" are such broad terms that its tough to get two people on the same page in a brief debate. For example, if it were just a debate about common descent vs. no common descent, that would be simple and straightforward. But ID makes the more modest claim that some features of the universe are best explained by design, which means that theoretically an ID advocate could believe 99 percent of what an evolutionist believes without contradiction.
What I would really like to see is a really well informed defender of evolution and attacker of ID like Elliott Sober take on Meyer, Dembski, or Craig. Unless Sober has unusually poor public speaking skills, it would be a massacre.
What exactly is the argument that reason cannot possibly arise as an emergent property of biological neural networks, which are made of a sort of spongy meat? Last I checked, reasoning ONLY EVER arises thusly.
Does anyone know of anything anywhere (ascertainable and verifiable) that engages in reasoning without the use of the proverbial grey matter?
Does anyone know of anything anywhere (ascertainable and verifiable) that engages in reasoning without the use of the proverbial grey matter?
Someone using the Argument from Reason would say that the brain is involved, but thinking and therefore reasoning requires a non-physical substance. In other words, it is at heart an argument for dualism.
Mind you, I think this argument is really lousy. Saying "why should we believe a materialistic brain can 'think'" is a lot like saying "why should we believe that a materialistic hand can 'grab'" or "why should we believe that a materialistic eye can 'blink'?"
Thinking and reasoning are verbs, and actions don't require the existence of non-physical substance in order to exist.
Last I checked, reasoning ONLY EVER arises thusly.
That begs the very question at hand. It's no better than Shermer's non-answer.
What exactly was the question again? Seriously, I don't see the dilemma here. If reason IS an emergent property of molecules, as it certainly appears to be, um, SO WHAT?
Rho - Perhaps you could expound a bit on why the idea of neural networks actually reasoning poses a problem. Perhaps suggest a deductive chain of reasoning which leads to an ineluctable conclusion?
Interesting post Rho. I've been noticing that atheists, non-theists, what-have-you are relying more and more on pragmatism as a test for truth, especially when using scientific arguments. Unfortunately for them, it's as bankrupt as evidentialism.
I love it when atheists obfuscate on the EAAN. They themselves pose a supposed false belief that would help promote survival; namely religion. It's just an example of the random collision of molecules not being a reliable discerner of truth claims.
Speaking of obfuscation, what were the premises of the EAAN in your best formulation? Someone go ahead and write it down in a deductively valid form, and then we'll see who is obfuscating.
In a purely naturalistic framework, to talk of rationality would be meaningless. On naturalism our cognitive faculties would be geared for survival, not rationality or truth. Therefore, we would have no reason to think any of our beliefs are true, even the belief in naturalism itself. All of what we perceive to be true would be nothing more than electrical impulses in our brains that would only be guiding us for survival, and therefore could be completely false, yet perceived to be true because it could promote survival. There would be no basis on which to think anything we perceive is true. This is epistemically incoherent and creates a state that is self-defeating for the naturalist.
1) On naturalism, our cognitive faculties are geared for survival.
2) It may be beneficial to believe false and irrational things in order to survive.
3) On naturalism we may believe that false and irrational things are true in order to better survive.
4) There is no way to differentiate between truth and falsehoods on naturalism.
5) Therefore, there is no possibility of rational judgement on naturalism.
or
1) Rationality is not purely chemical reactions in response to stimuli.
2) On naturalism, thought is purely chemical reactions in response to stimuli.
3) Rationalism does not exist on naturalism.
1) On naturalism, our cognitive faculties are geared for survival.
True.
2) It may be beneficial to believe false and irrational things in order to survive.
True, but probably insufficient to carry through an inductive argument. Many things "may be" beneficial, but the argument needs to conclude that something is probable, not merely possible.
3) On naturalism we may believe that false and irrational things are true in order to better survive.
True again. One particularly good example might be an evolved tendency towards belief in immaterial minds which proclaim transcendent moral commands.
4) There is no way to differentiate between truth and falsehoods on naturalism.
Whoa ho ho ho there! How does this follow from 1-3?!! It looks like you've skipped a premise or two.
You are missing a crucial premise which connects the premises to the conclusion with an entailment, e.g. IF human reasoning sometimes tends towards fallacious (but nonetheless biologically adaptive) lines of thinking, THEN human reason can *never* be trusted to come to proper conclusions using non-fallacious methods.
Of course, we are quite aware that human reasoning tends towards a whole array of formal and informal logical fallacies, and we have to take care to work around these. One of them, as it happens, is the fallacy of hasty induction, by which one might easily conclude that if SOME human reasoning is flawed, then ALL of it must be untrustworthy.
In other words, it is at heart an argument for dualism.
I've seen dualism described as one of the most weakest/most refuted ideas in philosophy (basically because it rests almost entirely on a negative description of the mind (ie it has no mass, isn't made of matter etc etc - which obviously doesn't say a lot about what it actually is, and even more to the point doesn't explain how it interacts with matter in the physical world)). Sounds remarkably like God in a lot of respects:
'well we know he creates universes, organisms, weather patterns, psychological illnesses, dictates ideas to his followers, answers prayers' and so on, but curiously for all of these no-one can give the slightest explanation as to how any of this happens
I love it when atheists obfuscate on the EAAN. They themselves pose a supposed false belief that would help promote survival; namely religion.
Roughly the same could be said of Christian theism
posit a means by which properly functional senses could be made (by the hand of God), then have a situation in the real world where they don't actually work to induce belief in the Christian God/the 'correct version' of the Christian God
ie I fail to see how large numbers of religious believers compared with the numbers of atheists/non-believers is a refutation of naturalism + evolution, whereas a reasonable number of non-believers, vast numbers of believers in non-Christian religions, and vast numbers of believers of 'incorrect' versions of Christianity compared with the relatively tiny numbers of reformed Protestants as well as the fact that the Christian story emphasises at least two means of undermining accurate sensory functioning (sin + devil(s)) means that the Christian position is therefore somehow more rational in comparison!
Bear in mind that any attempt to criticise an opposing religious position (Christian or non-Christian) is self-refuting on this view, because any choice of belief (such as the choice to follow reformed Protestantism or the belief that the bible is infallible) could simply be the work of a sin/devil induced sensory malfunction
Interesting post Rho. I've been noticing that atheists, non-theists, what-have-you are relying more and more on pragmatism as a test for truth, especially when using scientific arguments. Unfortunately for them, it's as bankrupt as evidentialism.
You're right that pragmatism doesn't necessarily = truth, but surely true ideas should have some pragmatic value (where appropriate)? I'm hard pushed to think of any supernatural ideas that have practical application in the real world - they generally either suffer from being completely vacuous/too vague to actually explain anything or simply unable to accurately describe anything about the world (without simply resorting to tactics like 'but what if God just made it look like the world was really old?' - firstly, these scenarios sound no different to 'brain-in-a- vat' skeptical scenarios to me, and secondly any sensible person would just employ Occam's razor as they would to any other proposal of this type)
You're right that pragmatism doesn't necessarily = truth, but surely true ideas should have some pragmatic value (where appropriate)?
I agree that true beliefs will work, but it does not follow then that just because something works that it must be true. Many things can work for various people (e.g., pantheism for the Hindu) but that does not mean it is true.
Concerning science, a theory can have pragmatic value even if the actual theory itself does not correspond to reality and therefore is not true. This is generally called the non-realist interpretation of scientific theories.
I'm hard pushed to think of any supernatural ideas that have practical application in the real world.
Salvation has had a practical and real application in my life.
other comments
So are you defending a pragmatic test for truth or not? The rest of the post seemed to trail off into something else.
Salvation has had a practical and real application in my life.
I'm meaning in terms of things like facilitating discoveries and driving industry and so on (eg like why Old Earth geology is productive and Young Earth geology is useless)
If not that, then in what way? Depending on what answers you might offer, I'd guess the exact same could be said of those who believe in non-Christian (and therefore, in your view, false) religions, or who have other misguided beliefs
So are you defending a pragmatic test for truth or not?
No, I'm saying that pragmatism won't guarantee you truth, but true ideas should (at least a reasonable amount of the time) guarantee you pragmatism. The fact that theistic ideas fail badly on this fact says a lot about them
The rest of the post seemed to trail off into something else.
I was outlining why theistic ideas often fail on the pragmatic front (due to the fact the 'explanation' is either vacuous ('God-did-it'), glaringly flawed/doesn't easily accommodate facts (eg so-called scientific creationism, faith healing etc), or self-defeating, ad-hoc and far too open to Occam's razor (eg Omphalos hypothesis)
I find the whole idea of EAAN absurd. If evolution is used to argue against naturalism, and evolution is a naturalistic theory, then if naturalism is wrong then evolution is also wrong. If evolution is wrong, then it can't be used to argue against naturalism.
It's just an argument against the unguided aspect of evolution (the mechanism aspect of the theory, ie the combination of apparently random genetic variation coupled to natural selection), not against the idea of common ancestry (since common ancestry doesn't refute generic idea of a god, although it isn't compatible with certain religious creation stories), so for example various forms of theistic evolution is untouched by the argument if it's successful
No, I'm saying that pragmatism won't guarantee you truth, but true ideas should (at least a reasonable amount of the time) guarantee you pragmatism.
Great! We don't disagree. I guess that ends that. I would only quibble that if it is really true, then it should always work. A reasonable amount of time seems to vague to be useful.
The fact that theistic ideas fail badly on this fact says a lot about them
I think this confuses the point of what a world view does. In my estimation Christian theism does a fine job of explaining the facts. It has practical value in my life, and the arguments for it are rather compelling. Moreover, I find atheism in general to be entirely unsatisfying as a worldview, unable to handle even basic questions such as "why does anything exist at all?" among others.
Have a merry Christmas!
Whoa ho ho ho there! How does this follow from 1-3?!! It looks like you've skipped a premise or two.
It's pretty obvious. If we believe false things are true because our physiology has evolved that way, how on earth can you differentiate between true and false. Your assessment of these premises may be false, yet you think they are true because you evolved a certain way.
Of course, we are quite aware that human reasoning tends towards a whole array of formal and informal logical fallacies, and we have to take care to work around these
The rules of logic itself could be an evolved false belief that promotes survival. There's no way to know on naturalism, since we're purely chemical reactions that respond to stimuli.
posit a means by which properly functional senses could be made (by the hand of God), then have a situation in the real world where they don't actually work to induce belief in the Christian God/the 'correct version' of the Christian God
Simple, certain people suppress the revelation of nature in pride and arrogance in order to continue in their disobedience unfettered.
"If we believe false things are true because our physiology has evolved that way, how on earth can you differentiate between true and false."
We do in fact have a tendency to believe false things are true, all too often. We humans have a demonstrable tendency towards quite a few different logical fallacies, not to mention belief in a startling array of invisible minds (ghosts, spirits, gods, etc.).
We can differentiate between true and false propositional claims by examining the evidence at hand and/or the chain of logic given to support a conclusion. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises because you failed to include any entailment of the form if X then Y. Implicitly, your assumption is "IF humans tend towards any fallacies whatsoever, THEN all human thinking is invalid," but this is obviously untrue.
"The rules of logic itself could be an evolved false belief that promotes survival."
Which ones are you suggesting might be false? I've admitted that humans are prone to all sorts of evolved false beliefs, particularly bad heuristics for drawing conclusions from evidence. If you care to reclassify one or more of the common rules of deductive or inductive logic into that bin, you are welcome to have a go at it. Nothing is sacred to a skeptic.
We do in fact have a tendency to believe false things are true, all too often.
Yet we can't know whether they are true or false because we evolved the belief to survive. It's indistinguishable on naturalism.
We can differentiate between true and false propositional claims by examining the evidence
You can examine as much evidence as you want. If the truth doesn't help in survival then our evolution won't allow the truth, because it wouldn't aid in survival. Our cognitive faculties are geared for survival, not truth.
Which ones are you suggesting might be false?
On naturalism, there would be no reason for any of them to actually be true. They only evolved for survival purposes. Whether things are logical or not doesn't matter, so long as we survive.
This last comment from bossmanham is gold - it is exactly the strength of EAAN. Spot on.
Dami0n,
How about this weather, eh? Won't be going anywhere for a while...
Our cognitive faculties are geared for survival, not truth.
The two are not mutually exclusive. An accurate perception of reality (my definition of truth) would probably be beneficial to survival.
An accurate perception of reality might be neutral to survival. Could an accurate perception of reality ever be detrimental to survival?
...we can't know whether they are true or false because we evolved the belief to survive. It's indistinguishable on naturalism.
Assertion is not argument, and you yet to show how this conclusion follows from the premise that naturalism is true. You just made a hasty induction from "reasoning may be faulty" to "reasoning cannot ever be trusted."
You can examine as much evidence as you want. If the truth doesn't help in survival then our evolution won't allow the truth, because it wouldn't aid in survival.
Of course truth helps in survival. Truths like "X may well kill you" or "Y will nourish you" have always been helpful to our species.
Why do you suppose that truth detection is maladaptive, and what would you suppose might aid biological fitness more than discerning the truth regarding what is helpful or harmful?
Do you all agree that the EAAN cannot go through without something like the following premise:
"Discerning truth is an adaptation which does not increase individual biological fitness."
If you do agree that this is a necessary part of the argument, what is your support for this key premise?
Is it not obvious that an individual which can reason to truths (e.g. that object behind the outcrop is a predator, which is dangerously nearby and probably swift of foot) will have more offspring that an similarly situated primate that cannot do so?
I hesitate to ask, but what assurance do you have that human cognitive faculties are reliable if supernaturalism is true? Would that not open up the possibility of the proverbial Cartesian evil daemon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_daemon
Assertion is not argument, and you yet to show how this conclusion follows from the premise that naturalism is true
It follows from the premises of the EAAN. I'm not simply asserting, I've also displayed why it's the case. When you feel like actually interacting with it, I'm all ears.
Of course truth helps in survival. Truths like "X may well kill you" or "Y will nourish you" have always been helpful to our species.
So what? That's not even relevant to the argument.
It doesn't matter if some truths happen to be beneficial to survival. The fact that some false beliefs also benefit survival shows that on naturalism, discerning the difference between the two is impossible.
I hesitate to ask, but what assurance do you have that human cognitive faculties are reliable if supernaturalism is true?
If there is a God who has fashioned our minds to be able to grasp truths, then we can be confident in our ability to do so. Since God is maximally good, we can also be confident He will not feed His people with false information.
I hesitate to ask, but what assurance do you have that human cognitive faculties are reliable if supernaturalism is true? Would that not open up the possibility of the proverbial Cartesian evil daemon?
EAAN is an internal critique of naturalism.
The evil demon thing is not an internal critique of Christianity. Rather, we level quite devastating internal critiques against it.
"It doesn't matter if some truths happen to be beneficial to survival. The fact that some false beliefs also benefit survival shows that on naturalism, discerning the difference between the two is impossible."
You are claiming that if naturalistic evolution selects for SOME specious reasoning then it follows that ALL human reasoning is specious. This is a classic case of hasty induction, and you've as yet done nothing to support your key premise.
In reality, though, humans can either reason well or reason poorly, and we have plenty of fallacies (such as hasty induction) to go around. You have as yet provided no reason to conclude that our fallible reasoning is a product of anything other than natural selection.
"When you feel like actually interacting with it, I'm all ears."
Okay listen carefully then I'll repeat myself a bit louder this time.
YOUR FOURTH PREMISE DOES NOT FOLLOW. YOUR ARGUMENT IS FORMALLY INVALID.
"EAAN is an internal critique of naturalism. The evil demon thing is not an internal critique of Christianity."
I do not recall bringing up Christianity. I was discussing whether the possibility of valid reasoning is more likely on either naturalism or supernaturalism.
Thus far, I've pointed out that supernaturalism contains the possibility of deceptive agencies which completely interfere with human attempts at reasoning, while the EAAN posits the possibility of less than perfectly infallible reasoning mechanisms, which we happen to actually have.
"If there is a God who has fashioned our minds to be able to grasp truths, then we can be confident in our ability to do so."
If such a God existed, we might reasonably expect the various peoples on the different continents have achieved a broad consensus on the major profound spiritual truths such as the nature of god(s), the afterlife, and the proper path.
This is a classic case of hasty induction, and you've as yet done nothing to support your key premise.
So how does one tell them apart, the faulty from the non-faulty? And then be certain that the judgment of faulty/non-faulty was non-faulty?
"So how does one tell them apart, the faulty from the non-faulty?"
With time and effort and training. For most kids, a bandwagon appeal ("All the cool kids smoke!") seems perfectly sound, as do most other informal fallacies. These intuitions must be overcome by analyzing which arguments are valid and which are not. This is a problem that apologists and philosophers must all face, since it is all too easy to fall into sloppy thinking, whether our minds were intelligently designed or not.
E1) Animals which discern truths effectively (e.g. X is available prey, but Y is a dangerous predator, path A is less dangerous than path B, etc.) are more apt to fulfill basic desires such as avoiding pain or attaining pleasure.
E2) Avoiding pain and attaining pleasure (e.g. food, mates, offspring, etc.) are the primary means of maximizing biological fitness for higher animals which are cognizant of such sensations as pain and pleasure.
E3) Animals which discern truths more effectively are more likely than other similarly situated animals to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, and thus are more likely to leave more offspring.
:. There is an evolutionary selective pressure for the discernment of truth.
Of course, this only really works for most *everyday* truths, such as truths about our immediate surroundings and whether our mates or offspring are content. It is clear enough that the human mind is not well adapted to seeking more abstract truths, but this is just as a naturalist would expect.
And you know that "time and effort and training" is non-faulty by...something other than a evidence-less appeal to blind faith, no?
I know it the same way you do, by working through what sort of logic works and what doesn't work.
Unless, of course, theists have access to a sort of master key of logical forms and fallacies which they got via revelation?
Consider the following list of fallacies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
To discover whether any fallacy is fallacious, the theist and the atheist much work through the same problem in the same way, unless the theist happens to have a revelation as to which sorts of arguments are logically valid and which ones are not. I've not read all the holy books, but I doubt that such lists are present in any of them.
Can we agree that the following argument is deductively valid?
1) On naturalism, human reasoning must be an imperfect adaptation to environmental pressures.
2) If human reasoning is imperfect, then it can never be trusted at all.
3) :. On naturalism, human reasoning cannot be trusted at all.
Eh?
If naturalism is true, even after we take our purely chemical brain through a process of inquiry, if a false belief will benefit survival, the process may lead to a false belief so long as we survive. Logic is just another one of those potentially false notions we evolved with to survive. There's no way to know on naturalism, because we're just geared for survival.
You are correct that "the process may lead to a false belief so long as we survive." I've posted a link to an extensive list of logical fallacies which are endemic to human reasoning. Now you have to show how it follows from the fact that we are prone to various errors in reasoning that we humans can *NEVER* reason validly to a sound conclusion.
Suppose humans only reason clearly, say, half of the time. Does the EAAN go through, and if so what is the conclusion?
"Logic is just another one of those potentially false notions we evolved with to survive."
Potentially false, perhaps. Certainly many seemingly logical arguments are, upon closer inspection, unreasonable. To make the EAAN go through, though, it is not enough to show that human reasoning is often fallible (as it surely is). You have to show that it cannot be trusted to ever reason soundly (as it surely does) IF naturalism is true.
Again, I encourage you to attempt to make the EAAN into a deductively valid argument. You can use Bayesian probability if you want, but I don't recommend it.
"There's no way to know on naturalism, because we're just geared for survival."
I'm guessing you skimmed past my argument for the conclusion that "There is an evolutionary selective pressure for the discernment of truth."
Merry Christmas, Rhology!
Suppose humans only reason clearly, say, half of the time. Does the EAAN go through, and if so what is the conclusion?
Then you'd have to have a means of figuring out which half, but better than half the time. Like all the time. But of course, that's not going to happen. Then you have to subject THAT to the same 50-50 process, and THAT...there's no reason to trust your cognitive faculties at all in this case.
Your whole line of reasoning is just Shermer's question-beg with fancier language and longer time. Same song, different verse.
On the Christian side of things, we have an infinite and truthful Mind to tell us that our cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true beliefs. It makes Christmas that much merrier.
And merry Christmas to you, JN.
"On the Christian side of things, we have an infinite and truthful Mind to tell us that our cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true beliefs."
Which would not explain (1) Why humans are so prone to all kinds of fallacious reasoning or (2) Why people do not seem to have remotely achieved a consensus as to the nature and plan of this alleged "infinite and truthful Mind."
"Then you have to subject THAT to the same 50-50 process." No you do not. You have to determine which arguments work and which ones do not, and deliberately restrict oneself to using the good ones as often as you can.
Unless you have a divine revelation telling you which arguments are valid and which are invalid, you have to do this the same way that I do.
Back to the EAAN. Does it not FAIL if indeed there is an "evolutionary selective pressure for the discernment of truth?" If so, you have to contend with my affirmative argument that this is truly the case, on the premises of naturalism and evolution.
Why humans are so prone to all kinds of fallacious reasoning
Because they ignore, suppress, and manipulate the God-based system of logic we have because of sin.
Why people do not seem to have remotely achieved a consensus as to the nature and plan of this alleged "infinite and truthful Mind."
Sin.
Unless you have a divine revelation telling you which arguments are valid and which are invalid, you have to do this the same way that I do.
No, because we know out of the box if we follow the truth our rationality is reliable. It's obviously not infinite, but it's reliable enough to know some truth, if we don't suppress it out of unrighteousness. See Romans 1:18.
But that only works if we have some reason to think we can make rational decisions like that. That convenience can't exist on naturalism.
No, because we know out of the box if we follow the truth our rationality is reliable.
How does that possibly help you to tell which arguments are valid and which ones are invalid? Consider the circumstantial ad hominem, e.g. "You only believe X because you are a sinner, therefore X is untrue." Valid or not?
Because they ignore, suppress, and manipulate the God-based system of logic we have because of sin. Where is this divine logic explained and how can you tell if a given argument is (divinely) logical? Is there a guide to valid and invalid argumentation in a Biblical appendix, or must we use our own reason to sort this sort of thing out?
How does that possibly help you to tell which arguments are valid and which ones are invalid?
Because you can trust the laws of logic which remain unfounded if naturalism is true because they flow from God.
Where is this divine logic explained and how can you tell if a given argument is (divinely) logical?
Logic is knowable because God has made us in His image to be able to rationalize.
Is there a guide to valid and invalid argumentation in a Biblical appendix
It's knowable because we were created as rational creatures. On naturalism, it evolved for survival and may or may not be true.
you can trust the laws of logic which remain unfounded if naturalism is true because they flow from God.
Which particular laws of logic flow from God and how do you know? Can you tell a logical deduction from an illogical one? Go back to my example fallacy (ad hom) and explain how you can tell whether it is divinely logical or infernally fallacious.
Logic is knowable because God has made us in His image to be able to rationalize.
This doesn't help us a bit to discern valid arguments from invalid ones.
On naturalism, [reasoning] evolved for survival and may or may not be true.
On supernaturalism, spiritual forces may interfere with any and all attempts at reasoning. The Pharoah may say to himself, it is rational to let these people go, but find his mind changed for him.
Moreover, no one has yet addressed my argument that evolution favors truth detection. Please, when you can, try to apply your god-given logic to that one.
E1) Animals which discern truths effectively (e.g. X is available prey, but Y is a dangerous predator, path A is less dangerous than path B, etc.) are more apt to fulfill basic desires such as avoiding pain or attaining pleasure.
E2) Avoiding pain and attaining pleasure (e.g. food, mates, offspring, etc.) are the primary means of maximizing biological fitness for higher animals which are cognizant of such sensations as pain and pleasure.
E3) Animals which discern truths more effectively are more likely than other similarly situated animals to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, and thus are more likely to leave more offspring.
:. There is an evolutionary selective pressure for the discernment of truth.
It's knowable because we were created as rational creatures.
I'll repeat my question from earlier
In that case
a. why does almost no-one (relatively speaking) follow the 'correct' version of Christianity? (given that surely creatures created by the Christian God would consider believing in the Christian God to be one of, if not the, most important belief they had to make)
b. if the answer to a. is because of devil(s), evil or mischievous spirits, the effects of sin, the deception of those who aren't in the so-called elect by God himself (which begs the question regarding how anyone would know they were in the elect if they could simply have been deceived into believing it by God!) etc etc,
what reason on Christianity do we have to trust our cognitive faculties if there are all these entities and so on undermining them? ie, why are the situations in a. and b. not a defeater for the idea that Christianity guarantees generally reliable functioning, yet the fact that some of the time false beliefs are evolutionarily advantageous, or that most people don't believe in atheism are defeaters for the conjunction of naturalism and evolution?
:. There is an evolutionary selective pressure for the discernment of truth.
I think claiming that evolution is incapable of producing any truth is much to strong. The problem is that many truths are biologically neutral with regard to producing offspring, especially the ones that you are discussing here. The main problem you have is determining which set of beliefs are actually true or not, and I do not think you have sufficiently addressed this. It seems that, at most, naturalism leaves you adrift in a sea of truth claims without any means of determining which of those claims are actually true.
As a side note, it is a common claim that belief in God is merely a coping mechanism that ancient men used to deal with the a world they could not comprehend. Surely, it must have been evolutionarily advantageous because it has persisted for so long, yet you do not believe it is really true. If naturalism is in fact true and evolution selects for true beliefs, why wasn't naturalism selected as the predominant worldview? I think this illustrates that your argument does not apply to all truth claims, and if it doesn't apply to all truth claims, how much utility does it really have?
Dr. Funkenstein,
Because of sin and because God is necessarily good.
The problem is that many truths are biologically neutral with regard to producing offspring, especially the ones that you are discussing here.
I doubt that any beliefs are really quite neutral, because almost any act of recall or deduction takes time away from hunting and gathering, but it should be clear that certain kinds of beliefs (e.g. those about our immediate environment and the agents therein) are particularly far from neutral. This leads to a selective pressure on biological neural networks to detect certain things about the environment and react adaptively. However, as I alluded to earlier, certain false beliefs may be positively adaptive for human beings living in tribal bands, such as the idea of transcendent moral norms which are somehow universally enforceable.
The main problem you have is determining which set of beliefs are actually true or not, and I do not think you have sufficiently addressed this.
I have noted repeatedly that we (theists and atheists) alike have to determine which arguments are valid and which are fallacious. All the various holy books offer little to no help on this point, sometimes even engaging in ad hominem attacks and other obvious fallacies.
It seems that, at most, naturalism leaves you adrift in a sea of truth claims without any means of determining which of those claims are actually true.
Again, no more than supernaturalism, which provides no magical or revealed way of knowing which arguments are valid and which are invalid. Moreover, it is not nearly enough to say "I know that my reasoning faculties are intelligently designed" because you know also that they fail quite often enough, hence the very lengthy list of formal and informal fallacies which I cited to earlier.
Given that there is no way of knowing for certain (on any world view) that our cognitive faculties are wholly reliable, one has to ask, which is the more plausible explanation for human reasoning, flawed such as it is:
1) It evolved as an adaptation to life among other increasingly intelligent primates, in order to solve a limited set of survival-related problems
- or -
2) It was intelligently designed by an all-powerful mind which also gave rise to the entire cosmos, with its billions of galaxies each with billions of stars.
It seems obvious to me which of these two hypotheses better fits the data at hand. It explains, for example, why we are far better at solving social puzzles than logically equivalent problems stated symbolically.
On a side-note for literalists, was Eve being *reasonable* when she took the fruit and ate of it? If not, did her illogical reasoning precede her first sin, or were they contemporaneous?
If contemporaneous, why was the potential for such a blazingly irrational decision intelligently designed into the system in the first place, and how does that fit into the theory that there exists a "God who has fashioned our minds to be able to grasp truths" which has been posited here? Seems to me that it it ought've been GRASPABLY TRUE that eating the fruit was a bad idea from any non-serpentine POV.
Speaking of tenable of the theistic assumption that the human mind was made to reason well, can anyone come up with a more compact expression of the logical fallacy of ad hominem than the following rhetorical question:
"You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?"
Remember, the above-mentioned fallacy usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.
However, as I alluded to earlier, certain false beliefs may be positively adaptive for human beings living in tribal bands, such as the idea of transcendent moral norms which are somehow universally enforceable.
This is precisely what I was talking about, except you claim that you have some mechanism of figuring out which are the false beliefs. I does not seem reasonable, on naturalistic grounds, to be able to adjudicate these sorts of things.
I have noted repeatedly that we (theists and atheists) alike have to determine which arguments are valid and which are fallacious.
So, you apparently accept the point and argue that we are all in the same boat. I strongly disagree with this. On Christian theism logic is grounded in an omniscient holy God, whereas on naturalism logic is grounded on an evolutionary process that may or may not have generated good logical reasoning. These are vastly different vantage points.
As an aside, flawed reasoning is the result of sin. Sinful acts, such as Eve's or Satan's act of rebellion, are real possibilities for morally free agents.
which is the more plausible explanation for human reasoning, flawed such as it is: (1) or (2)
Or, did everything arise out of nothing or did everything arise out of the mind of a creator? Seems to me that the answer is obvious. This is epecially true in the light of the Fall, by which flawed reasoning is accounted.
Cheers
As an aside, flawed reasoning is the result of sin. Sinful acts, such as Eve's or Satan's act of rebellion, are real possibilities for morally free agents.
Eve was gifted with unflawed reasoning before she decided to eat the fruit? Why, then, such a deeply flawed and irrational choice? Does not such sin always involve a defect in reasoning, or was Eve reasoning well when she allowed herself to be decieved?
What makes you think the human mind is well built, on theism, if your own theistic cosmogony starts out with massively bad human decision makig right out of the gate?
Let us boil this down to a couple simple queries:
1) Is sinning always an irrational choice, given all pertinent facts?
2) Are not all humans (including the original sinless models) endowed with an inherent capacity to sin?
If your answer to both of these questions is in the affirmative, does it not follow that humans are all endowed with defective reasoning abilities which allow them to make irrational choices?
If so, how is it that your worldview provides assurance of well-designed human cognitive faculties?
Sorry about the delay. More important things to attend to.
To clarify, in one sense sin is the suppression of information. So, I am not sure that "given all the pertinent facts" makes your question set that simple. People suppress pertinent facts all the time, such as God's general revelation in the natural world. Also, I agree that people reason imperfectly; this is what sin does. Eve choosing to disobey, her faulty reasoning included, is her sinning.
Eve did have the option to do otherwise. She could have obeyed; however, she was created free and this necessarily made sinning as she did a live option. Creating a human that did not have the capacity to sin would not be creating a truly free creature.
About human reasoning. I want to stress that Christian theism and naturalism are on very different grounds. Christian theism is founded on a God who is there and has soken propositionally. The basis for logic is thus grounded in him. We have the capability to reason (though imperfectly due to sin) because we are created in his image. On naturalism, there is nothing special about man, and there is nothing special about the way he reasons. Human thought patterns are merely geared to survive. I simply do not see how this can provide a foundation for arriving at true beliefs about reality. All it does is arrive at beliefs that further human survival, regardless if they are true of reality or not. See my previous comments about the evolutionary selection pressure for true beliefs.
Cheers
So we are down to two possibilities here:
1) Humans were intelligently designed so as to include an ability to reason badly, which allows them the 'freedom' to make incredibly bad choices.
--or--
2) Humans evolved reasoning capacities inasmuch as these promoted individual survival.
You are saying that humans on hypothesis (1) are self-evidently more reliable reasoners than on hypothesis (2). I do not see an argument to this effect. Either way, human reasoning is somewhat fallible, and in any case we know now that humans are prone to all sorts of fallacious arguments, such as the ad hom we find in the Bible.
"Christian theism is founded on a God who is there and has [spoken] propositionally. The basis for logic is thus grounded in him."
Where? I've read about logic from the ancient Greeks, but not in the sacred texts.
So we are down to two possibilities here:
No, at least three. Conveniently, and true to form, you leave out the biblical narrative including sin.
Rho - I think you missed a few posts.
"Eve choosing to disobey, her faulty reasoning included, is her sinning."
Rho - If you believe Eve's choosing to eat the fruit did NOT involve a bad decision based on faulty reasoning, you are welcome to say so. I doubt that you are willing to claim that she was reasoning well, though.
Of course we cannot know what Eve was thinking, but we know that she weighed at least the following five factors:
1) the fruit was good for food
2) the fruit was pleasing to the eye
3) the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom
4) the serpent said "You will not surely die"
5) the creator of the entire world said "...when you eat of it you will surely die."
Now I'm not sure what her reasoning was, but it is clear in the narrative that she does some pondering and then comes to a [bad] decision.
We must conclude that her reasoning was either sound or unsound. If sound, that there is some way to justify her decision rationally based on the information at hand. If unsound, then humans were designed with faulty reasoning built in from the get go.
I understand that you may want to conceptually separate sinning from reasoning badly, but how can it ever be rational to sin, is Xn theism is true?
So we are down to two possibilities here
Actually there are others, but we are restricting ourselves only to Christian theism and naturalism in this post.
I think you are missing the point. I agree that *humans* can have faulty reasoning. Concerning Eve, this is part and parcel to her being created as a free moral agent. However, in my worldview there is an omniscient and good God who provides a foundation for rational thinking. Your worldview lacks this foundation. I see no compeling evidence that naturalism can generate this foundation by pulling on its own bootstraps. At least, on Christian theism there is an external foundation to which I can appeal.
I do notice that you freely admit that naturalism is unreliable for arriving at truth, especially abstract truth such as which worldview is correct. Why then do you feel that your worldview is true given the premise that you are the product of a naturalistic process? To parrot Rhology, why should I believe your account of which worldview is correct over the fizzing of a soda pop?
"[I]n my worldview there is an omniscient and good God who provides a foundation for rational thinking."
If (in your worldview) this same creator built in the capacity to make staggeringly bad decisions using faulty reasoning, how is it comforting to know that he provided also for the possibility of rational thinking?
Look again at the factors Eve weighed. Do you get the sense that she build anything on a "foundation for rational thinking" when choosing to eat the fruit?
"...on Christian theism there is an external foundation to which I can appeal."
How does one get to that foundation without reasoning thereto? Do you simply *assume* that God exists and endows you with the ability to reason well?
Back to Adam and Eve for a moment. Does your Bible record that they made any significant moral choices prior to the Fall?
If not why assume that they were made to reason well? It's not like they were batting .999 or even .500, they failed right out of the gate.
"To parrot Rhology, why should I believe your account of which worldview is correct over the fizzing of a soda pop?"
Now this is just silly. Soda pop doesn't process information and you surely know that.
I already gave an argument as to why truth-detection by neural networks may be highly adaptive in mammals. I refer you back to it.
Soda pop doesn't process information and you surely know that.
1) YOU can't possibly know THAT. How did you do your experiments? What evidence do you have that no soda pop processes info?
2) Begging the very question at hand. I dispute that human brains can process information. Again you're just parroting Shermer and PZM.
“I dispute that human brains can process information.”
Priceless. I'm making this my new sig.
Seriously, you should know by now that the intended and obvious implied suffix to that sentence is "...if naturalism is true."
I'm asking you to prove me wrong, if naturalism is true. It's an internal critique. Of naturalism.
I'd counsel patience before making that your sig line. Might make you look like you can't follow an argument.
"Might make you look like you can't follow an argument."
Let's all pretend that you made one. It might have looked like this:
1) Nothing that operates according to natural law can process information.
2) If naturalism is true, brains are merely organs of the body, operating according to natural laws.
3) :. If naturalism is true, brains cannot process information.
It's an interesting argument, but no naturalist is going to get past the first premise.
If (in your worldview) this same creator built in the capacity to make staggeringly bad decisions using faulty reasoning, how is it comforting to know that he provided also for the possibility of rational thinking?
Actually quite comforting that he made us as free entities and not mere puppets in a cosmic play. I don't see what's so hard about this. To be truly free Eve must have had the ability to disobey. She chose to do so. To not allow this is to not create free creators.
How does one get to that foundation without reasoning thereto? Do you simply *assume* that God exists and endows you with the ability to reason well?
Getting to the foundation...the simple answer is to open your heart and believe Damion. You are blind but God in His goodness will open your eyes to the truth. This is not a blind leap of faith. There are many good reasons for believing in the existence of the Christian God.
By the way, this question degenerates to asking me for a rational reason why my worldview is valid while yours is not. I do not believe rationalism is a valid test for the truthfulness of a worldview.
Back to Adam and Eve for a moment.
1. This is an argument from silence. We simply do not have a detailed record that says this is the very first moral decision they made. To be sure, Adam obeyed God when commanded to name the animals. So there was at least one, maybe there are others. We simply do not know. You can't calculate a batting average unless you have detailed knowledge of the number of attempts.
2. We have good reasons to believe that human beings are rational creatures because we are created in the image of God, and God is a rational being.
Now this is just silly. Soda pop doesn't process information and you surely know that.
On naturalism you are merely a chemical reaction. Granted, you are a rather complex one. You are chemicals in motion governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. So is a soda pop. Now give me a good reason why your chemicals in motion should be trusted over those of a soda pop.
I already gave an argument as to why truth-detection by neural networks may be highly adaptive in mammals. I refer you back to it.
Yes, and we agreed that it is possibly good for things like staying away from insects that are black and yellow. But you have not demonstrated that is at all reliable for the metaphysical questions you are proposing. Furthermore, you admitted that it isn't good for detecting all truth. How do you know that it gave you the right answer about naturalism? This gets back to the question of how you know that you have arrived at truth when you may in fact have arrived at falsehood even though you think it is right. This is in an entirely different boat than the Christian. On Christianity there is a good God who grounds rationality.
Perhaps another way to say this is that I do not think you have sufficient warrant to believe that evolutionary processes will result in correct reasoning, especially with regard to questions like which worldview is true.
"Now give me a good reason why your chemicals in motion should be trusted over those of a soda pop."
I posted my argument, twice. Want me to post it again?
" I do not think you have sufficient warrant to believe that evolutionary processes will result in correct reasoning..."
I did not say that evolutionary processes have resulted in an infallible reasoning device. No one says that. We realize that there are many fallacies inherent to human reason and we take care to identify and avoid them.
I do not think that you have sufficient warrant to believe that divine creation results in "correct reasoning" firstly because Adam and Eve reasoned badly right off the bat by your own particular cosmogony, and secondly because there is no way to tell the difference between an all-powerful deity bent on deceiving you and an all-powerful deity bent upon giving you mercy and truth. As a being of limited knowledge and power, there is no way at all for you to tell the difference between those two possibilities. So the supernaturalist is in an even worse position than the naturalist, because they are at the mercy of supernatural beings who may or may not care to reveal truth to humanity.
"...you have not demonstrated that [human reason] is at all reliable for the metaphysical questions you are proposing."
I do not believe that it is, hence the dominance of various theisms and other magical thinking throughout human history.
"There are many good reasons for believing in the existence of the Christian God."
Are they more persuasive than, say, a spurious analogy between complex neural networks and fizzy soda pop?
This is a bit off topic, but I should point out that cognitive scientists are well aware of the problem that human reasoning was not intelligently designed but rather adapted to environmental circumstance. They have been studying the problem for decades now. Here is one of the highly cited papers:
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/socexcog89.pdf
Notice that while evolution potentially explains the domain-specific nature of human reasoning and its failings, ID does not and cannot do so.
Here is the link again.
PChem:
However, in my worldview there is an omniscient and good God who provides a foundation for rational thinking.
How do you know that God is omniscient? Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to determine omniscience? On what basis do you know that God is good? Wouldn't you need an independent means of determining whether God is good?
The omniscience and goodness of God are just definitional and hence, have no descriptive meaning. Yet you use the terms in describing God.
I posted my argument, twice. Want me to post it again?
Your argument is not impressive to me. You can keep referring to it, but that doesn't help.
You claim that evolution operates under a selection pressure to arrive at truth, but I find this unconvincing. The selection pressure will result in beliefs that promote survival and those do not necessarily need to be true. For example, not building a village on top of a active volcano because the volcano god will destroy you is just as effective at promoting survival as not building there because you believe in modern volcanology. Tell me how you know that naturalism is the correct worldview. You can't do it.
an all-powerful deity bent on deceiving you and an all-powerful deity bent upon giving you mercy and truth
Maybe you missed the part where God is necessarily good.
Are they more persuasive than, say, a spurious analogy between complex neural networks and fizzy soda pop?
I never presented this as positive evidence for a God. As a chemist, I study chemical reactions ALL the time. On naturalism, you are just a chemical reaction. Do you disagree? Why should I expect ANY chemical reaction, complexity notwithstanding, to be a reliable source of truth detection? The point of the observation is that you apparently are not content to live with the consequences of naturalism. Why not be satisfied with the inherent meaninglessnness of everything. At the end of day, on naturalism there is really no difference in the set of chemical reactions called Damion and the set of chemical reaction operating in a car battery. I think that you are arguing against this shows that you cannot live under your world view, and that counts against the worldview. There are worldviews where one can live under them.
Cheers!
"Maybe you missed the part where God is necessarily good."
See NAL's last post. As a finite being of limited knowledge and reasoning ability, you have no way of telling the difference between the god that you believe in and another all-powerful being bent upon deceiving you into believing in such a god.
Now, is there some reason to assume that this particular patch of is governed by a good deity rather than a nasty one? I look around the world and I see suffering at every level, nature red in tooth and claw. I do not see the fingerprints of benevolence.
"...not building a village on top of a active volcano because the volcano god will destroy you is just as effective at promoting survival as not building there because you believe in modern volcanology."
In both cases, though, the humans HAVE grasped the essential and survival-adaptive truth that active volcanoes bode ill for nearby villages.
Similarly, many secular humanists have grasped the truth that monogamy is an emotionally and physically healthy way to live, despite having done away with the superstition that the gods care about human bonding one way or another.
I could go on about adaptive food taboos in India and Africa, but you get the idea. Sometimes humans believe true things on folk wisdom alone, and this too can be adaptive.
"Why should I expect ANY chemical reaction, complexity notwithstanding, to be a reliable source of truth detection?"
Why do you think that the brain does the thinking, rather than pumping the blood or digesting the food? Whatever reasons you have to think that thought is centered in the brain, those are the reasons you should expect that the particular electrochemical reactions in the brain are useful for truth detection. Not 100% reliable, mind you. I've never claimed that.
PChem:
You claim that evolution operates under a selection pressure to arrive at truth, ...
No he didn't.
Damion:
I did not say that evolutionary processes have resulted in an infallible reasoning device.
But a nice straw man argument.
Back to logical fallacies for a moment. Naturalists explain these many and varied common mistakes in reasoning on account of the fact that the brain is an adapted organ rather than a triumph of intelligent design.
How does Xn theism explain this long list of mistakes common in human reasoning? Why did the intelligently designed brain go so badly awry?
I'm guessing that you are going to say 'sin' but that brings us back to the ineluctable fact that one needs to reason poorly in order to eat the fruit in the first place!
We've been over the whole "evil god" thing before around here. In a nutshell, the answer is in the impossibility of the notion.
How does Xn theism explain this long list of mistakes common in human reasoning? Why did the intelligently designed brain go so badly awry?
Sin, among other things. I thought you just told me we'd been over this ground before, now you want to rehash it a 3rd/4th/nth time?
Sorry, but 'sin' is not an all purpose trump card. You have not addressed the problem that on your worldview Eve's initial faulty reasoning was done prior to her sinning by eating the fruit.
Review the factors that Eve had to consider:
1) the fruit was good for food
2) the fruit was pleasing to the eye
3) the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom
4) the serpent said "You will not surely die"
5) the creator of the entire world said "...when you eat of it you will surely die."
How could an intelligently designed reasoner possibly conclude from this that eating the fruit is a good idea?
You are stuck with the idea that humans were designed to reason quite badly from the get go, on your own cosmogony.
How could an intelligently designed reasoner possibly conclude from this that eating the fruit is a good idea?
Again you're smuggling quite a lot into your notions of what it means to be intelligently designed. It doesn't necessarily imply anything else about the being.
Now, if you ask me (a Calvinist), God ordained eternity "ago" that Eve would eat the fruit. Doesn't change the fact that she was designed.
If you ask PChem, not a full Calvinist, it's b/c she chose to eat it. Same thing.
Also, have you ever heard the term "noetic effects of sin"? It has to do with the wide effects of sin on everything in creation, not just morality and character.
Rho - I read that post and did not find an argument in which you show how humans can tell the difference between these two possibilities:
1) TGOTB lives and is not silent
2) The all-powerful Cartesian evil genius lives and want you to believe (1) is true.
No evidence can help you here, since an all-powerful deceiver can do anything TGOTB can do, plus more things like lying and creating injustice.
Your only argument is that (2) was obviously made up men, but that's exactly what we naturalists think of (1).
Back to that hypothetical volcano for a moment. It was a fine example of magical thinking being used for an adaptive purpose. It reminded me of another scenario.
1) A tribe of naturalists has a rule to bury their poop well outside of camp, because they believe that such hygienic behavior will prevent unwanted parasites and scavengers.
2) A tribe of ancient Semites has a rule to bury their poop well outside of camp, because "the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy."
Now both of these rules are equally adaptive, but one of them has the virtue of being believable without first having to gather loads of scientific evidence to confirm facts about the world.
It is true enough that humans are given over to magical thinking, but this is precisely what an evolutionist ought to expect. We have to take care to identify such faith-based thinking and replace it with fact-based reasoning.
"...you're smuggling quite a lot into your notions of what it means to be intelligently designed."
I'm not the one trying to conclude that human brains were intelligently designed to reason well - you are. I don't want to smuggle in anything you aren't already carrying.
My position is that humans reason badly much of the time, for example, they tend to do badly on the Wason selection task unless it is phrased in terms of human social relationships, which is precisely what an evolutionist ought to expect.
Your only argument is that (2) was obviously made up (by) men
No it wasn't. But I suppose anyone can read the post oneself to make up their mind.
Saying sthg is ad hoc isn't quite the same as what you were saying. Further, what is developed in the combox even more is that there's no reason to believe in the Cartesian demon since there's no reason to think that the demon would not be planting the idea that there is such a demon. It's self-refuting.
That sits just fine for someone whose presupp is that God has revealed Himself, but for someone who says "I blv only that for which there is evidence", it's a backbreaker; you have no evidence against that idea and no way to get any.
NAL,
Take a look at Damion's post on Fri Dec 25, 06:43:00 PM CST. He concludes there is an evolutionary selection pressure to arrive at truth. He does back of and say that it is not infallible. I agree with this, and I would even go so far as to agree that there may be some pressure to arrive at some truth such as avoiding poisonous animals. However, I do not see how there is a selection pressure to discern the truth of metaphysical claims. Furthermore, there is no way to know which metaphysical claims are true based on this mechanism. The only result is whether or not the species survives, but surely this is an inadequate truth test.
You are stuck with the idea that humans were designed to reason quite badly from the get go, on your own cosmogony.
I disagree about designed to reason badly. They were designed as free moral agents which necessarily allowed the possibility of faulty reasoning. This is something different entirely than being designed to reason poorly.
There are several different ways that theologians and philosophers have formulated the reason that God is good. I am going to post an abbreviated version from N. Geisler.
He defines good as "that which is desired for its own sake."
1. It is undeniable that some things are desired for their own sake.
2. All actualities actualized in the effect must preexist in the cause.
3. The universe is an effect (that is, it was caused).
4. Therefore, the good present in the universe demands that the cause of the universe also be good.
Since the cause of the universe is also infinite, then it is of maximal goodness.
To clarify, evil and good are not two separate entities. Evil is the absence of good. A similar analogy can be drawn between coldness and hotness.
I look around the world and I see suffering at every level, nature red in tooth and claw. I do not see the fingerprints of benevolence.
And how exactly do you expect to judge benevolence in the absence of a standard of good external to yourself? Your worldview lacks an objective, external standard of morality. I do not see how can even observe evil on your worldview. It is merely a difference of perspective.
Also, the presence of evil can be turned into an argument for the existence of God (Moreland & Craig).
1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Lastly, I find great peace knowing that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good, for this gives me assurance that one day evil will be defeated. Such a guarantee is simply not available on naturalism.
Cheers and not edited.
faith-based vs. fact-based
Facts are always interpreted within a context. They are not self-interpretive nor can one derive meaning from them in a vacuum. A world view is simply an over-arching context which systematizes all known facts. Furthermore, different facts can be accounted for in different ways in different world views. How do you plan to use a set of facts + the worldview context used to interpret those facts as ammunition against a different world view? Appealing to facts or evidence really doesn't help in this sort of discussion because the interpretations of those facts are already placed within a world view. Thus, they are not independent discriminators among world views.
Cheers and not edited either
faith-based thinking and replace it with fact-based reasoning.
Indeed, PChem.
Dami0n, can you give some evidence that evidence is the best way to discover truth? If not, isn't your own worldview faith-based as well? Given that, why lob manure?
"Furthermore, there is no way to know which metaphysical claims are true based on this mechanism."
One definition of metaphysical is that which is not physical nor perceptible via the senses. If naturalism is true, then no metaphysical claims are even possibly true. On naturalism, only claims about the actual universe and the energy and matter therein may be true or false.
Accordingly, it ought not disconcert naturalists that evolution has not equipped us particularly well to address metaphysical claims. They are content to study the real world and the processes unfolding therein.
3. The universe is an effect
How can Geisler (or anyone) claim to know that?
Last I checked, the English word "effect" refers to an event occurring over time upon preexisting matter and energy. For example, the effect of a cue ball striking an eight ball is to transfer kinetic energy from one ball to another, thus changing its position and velocity.
"...can you give some evidence that evidence is the best way to discover truth?"
Why bother giving evidence to someone who does not believe in evidence?
Before I address the argument from "objective moral values" I'd like to know what exactly you think that means. Last I checked, values exist only in the minds of subjects, that is, they exist subjectively. For example, I subjectively value both good health and Ron's Hamburgers, and I have to balance these values against one another.
What is and OBJECTIVE moral value and how does it exist?
On naturalism, only claims about the actual universe and the energy and matter therein may be true or false.
So, why are you even here debating this? Also, this sure does smell like an a priori presupposition against anything supernatural.
Geisler
The universe began to exist. Something must have caused it. Thus, it is an effect.
Evidence
Also, I doubt Rhology does not believe in evidence. Rather, evidence deserves to be put in its proper place. It does not exist independent of the context through which it was interpreted.
Objectivism
Objectivism holds that moral statements are stating facts about the acts of morality themselves or the objects that are said to have value. In contrast, subjectivism conveys information about the speaker of the moral statement. As an example, consider the statement "murder is wrong." On subjectivism, this is properly translated as "I dislike murder" (private subjectivism) or "We in our culture dislike murder" (cultural relativism). The statement is not normative for anyone else. On objectivism, "murder is wrong" is a binding moral statement for all individuals regardless of their personal preferences as such.
Re: [Moral] Objectivism
I don't think "murder" is a good term to use here, since it means "morally unjustified killing of a human being" and so you're using a morally loaded term to make a point about what morality is. Whatever morality is, the idea of "murder" is already incorporating moral concepts. It would be better to use morally unloaded language to describe an act, if you hope to use that particular act as an example without begging the question in the process.
That aside, you say that "X is wrong" describes a binding moral statement for all individuals.
This does not help answer my question as to how moral values exist objectively rather than subjectively, that is, in the mind of a subject which holds values. Remember my question was how can *values* exist apart from a subjective perception of value?
Re: The universe began to exist.
This is fairly obviously untrue.
Consider what we English speakers mean when we say that something, anything at all, "began to exist." Whatever that something may be, say, an ice cube or an iceberg or an icy comet, what we mean by "began to exist" is that a bunch of preexistent matter was somehow rearranged over time into a new and recognizable form which at a given time can be nicely fit into a conceptual bin which we label as "ice cube" or what-have-you.
Now obviously, the universe did not "begin to exist" in this sense at all, since the universe includes all matter/energy and space/time.
Re: Why are you even here debating this?
I consider it mildly amusing. I do not expect anyone here to ever be convinced by any evidence or argument that I might muster. Presuppositionalists are notoriously immune to such things, having conveniently presupposed that which they earnestly desire to be true.
Now obviously, the universe did not "begin to exist" in this sense at all, since the universe includes all matter/energy and space/time.
You really deny that the universe came into being? I didn't realize that you believe in the eternality of the universe. Amazing given all the rational-thinking and evidentialism hubris you've thrown around.
having conveniently presupposed that which they earnestly desire to be true.
Ironically, this is precisely the same I think of naturalists using their "evidence" to bolster their position.
Being close-minded is a tragedy, and I try to keep as open minded as possible. I simply find your arguments for naturalism lacking and in some cases curiously circular.
This does not help answer my question as to how moral values exist objectively rather than subjectively, that is, in the mind of a subject which holds values. Remember my question was how can *values* exist apart from a subjective perception of value?
You question seems very puzzling since the answer is premise 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values don't exist.
1. Objective moral values flow from the nature of God, and as such are rooted in his character and his mind (see premise 1).
2. If God exists, then surely moral values external to yourself are possible. However, if God does not exist, then I see no way for objectivity at all. All values would become subjective and I would totally agree with you.
I guess I don't see what the sticking point is with this one.
You really deny that the universe came into being?
Changing the phrasing won't help you out here.
If someone were to say that an ice cube "came into being" they would have to mean that over time a glob of H2O which we would not call an ice cube "came to be" that which we would rightly describe as an ice cube. Once again, we are dealing with the change over time of forms of preexistent matter.
Obviously, such terminology cannot be rightly applied to the whole of space/time and matter/energy. It is facile to suppose that such a move might possibly make sense.
Unless, of course, you can find an example of "came into being" or "began to exist" in ordinary English which describes something other than a process of change over time acting so as to form preexistent matter/energy into a new form. I doubt that you can do this, except in the context of the cosmological argument, but that supports my point that you are hijacking ordinary English terms (and the intuitions that we ordinarily apply to them) for purposes for which they are (upon reflection) clearly unfit.
...this is precisely the same I think of naturalists using their "evidence" to bolster their position.
IF naturalism were true, what more evidence might one reasonably expect to find, beyond that which we already have to hand?
I would say that we live in precisely the sort of universe which one might expect to observe if naturalism were true.
To give a specific example, if naturalism is true, then all religions are just made up collections of memes which are transmitted primarily from parents to children. This explains much about the social distribution of religion in the world. Everyone seems to believe themselves quite fortunate to have been born into the one true faith. How propitious!
"I simply find your arguments for naturalism lacking and in some cases curiously circular."
Honestly, I do not recall making any arguments for naturalism herein this thread. Not yet, anyway. My argument thus far has been that naturalists can trust their reason only to a point, if naturalism is true. Hence, we naturalists have to take care to study the mistakes to which the human mind is prone. This is partly why I brought up the Wason selection task, which is among the many ways in which we can tell when the human mind is weak. Of course, this task has nothing to do with sin but rather with the actual natural weaknesses which one might expect if naturalism and evolution are true.
"Objective moral values flow from the nature of God, and as such are rooted in his character and his mind"
If they exist only the mind of a given subject, even an all-powerful one, they must be subjective. Unless, of course, you mean "subjective" in a rather different sense than I do.
So you argue that one cannot talk intelligently of the universe forming. How convenient! I think you are in a real pickle here if you deny the universe began to exist. Once again, do you believe the universe is eternal?
As an aside, effect is used here as the second definition, something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent). According to Velasquesz's textbook on Philosopy, a cause is "whatever is responsible for or leads to a change, motion, or condition." Certainly going from nothing to something demands causal action.
You have also entirely missed the point about evidentialism. After you establish that it is a good truth test, then you can begin to work on demonstrating that the evidence you cite in favor of naturalism is indeed independent of any worldview (otherwise it is begging the question). Once you do that you might have something. But right now, all you have is a bankrupt truth test that is hopelessly tied to a specific worldview. I am sorry, but that isn't too impressive. I agree that naturalism can provide a coherent picture of all known facts, as can Christian theism. The coherence is not surprising at all.
Moral truth does flow from God but it is not capricious. It is based on his character which is necessarily good and unchanging. By the way, this would indeed be an objective moral standard to humans. Again, I reiterate that this is premise 1.
PChem:
Lastly, I find great peace knowing that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good, for this gives me assurance that one day evil will be defeated.
And that should be a red flag. You want God to exist because it makes you feel better. That's just a little too convenient for me. That is the hallmark of human invention.
PChem:
How convenient! I think you are in a real pickle here if you deny the universe began to exist.
Before 1 Planck Time
Nothing is known of this period.
Of course you are free to speculate what happened before 1 Planck time. But nothing is known.
...right now, all you have is a bankrupt truth test that is hopelessly tied to a specific worldview.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. If you do not accept evidence as dispositive on some issues, and expect others to do the same, why bother exchanging information on a blog?
For example, the OP is an attempt to present evidence that an outspoken naturalist cannot adequately deal with the fact that his brain is made of molecules, and conclude that such evidence undermines naturalism as a worldview. Obviously, I do not think this is a good argument, but surely it is an attempt to weigh evidence for or against a worldview.
Everyone in the combox has brought up evidence in some form or another, and so I assumed that we all think that other people might well consider such evidence worthy of mulling over a bit.
"[God's] character which is necessarily good..."
If it is necessarily good, that implies either:
1) God's character is good by some objective standard, i.e. weighed against moral facts independent of any mind.
2) God's character is whatever it is, and we call it "good" because it is His and He not to be trifled with.
The first view is genuine moral objectivism, the second is basically might makes right.
NAL,
And that should be a red flag.
Actually it is a natural outworking from the nature of God. And, yes it does give me peace so what.
Nothing is known of this period.
Indeed. How do you intend to explain why the universe is here then? It could have not existed, but it clearly does. Is the universe eternal or not?
Evidence
All I am saying that you have to be extremely careful formulating any truth test based on evidence because the nature of evidence itself is very problematic. It is not independent of a worldview. Also, you are the one who challenged us to give up faith-based views for fact-based ones.
More on morality
Neither are correct. The first says that there is something higher than God, which is illogical. The second is also flawed because it assumes that evil is a distinct entity from goodness. In other words, if cruelty and hatred were God's character then those would be properly called "good" because he is not to be trifled with. I reject this because (1) evil is the absence of good and (2) good is whatever is desired for its own sake. I have a hard time accepting cruelty as something desired for its own sake. This seems intuitive to me. Do you view cruelty as desirable for its own sake?
I think the first premise still stands.
"Is the universe eternal or not?"
If eternality means that something has existed at every moment of time, then yes, since the physical universe extends throughout all time and space, back to t~=0
Otherwise, eternality is a troublesome and possibly incoherent idea. So I suppose the question is whether you define eternal in a sense that makes sense, or not.
Re: "Good"
...good is whatever is desired for its own sake.
An interestingly subjective definition. Desired by whom?
I have a hard time accepting cruelty as something desired for its own sake.
I'm glad to hear that you are not a sadist, but evidently some folks are.
To give an example, many people desire to eat other mammals not because it is necessary for health, but because they enjoy the taste of mammalian flesh. Presumably, some cannibals feel the same way about human flesh. If the good is whatever people desire for its own sake, then surely carnivory and cannibalism are good by definition, at leas for those people, because they enjoy it so much.
Now hopefully I've misunderstood your definition of good, because I doubt that you care to go this far.
we know nothing about it
Isn't that exactly what one would expect if there was in fact nothing at all prior to the beginning of universe?
Um, "prior to the universe" is a bit nonsensical from where I'm sitting. Sort of like "north of the north pole."
About morality and the nature of good. There are two things going on. Remember, the original point leading to this discussion is whether or not naturalism provides a sufficient basis for discovering truth. My worldview accounts for this based on the nature of God. I was then challenged as to how I know that God is good, especially in light of all the bad things in the world. This turned into two different arguments:
(1) That God must be good (and infinitely good) because there is good in our universe. For the purposes of discussion, I defined good as whatever is desired for its own sake. Clearly then, it is undeniable that good exists. You even said so in your example. Now we can have a hearty discussion of what content should be counted as good and why, but the point I intended has been served: good exists. I am not wedded to this definition of good; it was merely to help conversation.
It is clearly leading the discussion off-track. I am happy to restate the first premise as
1. It is undeniable that good exists.
This is obviously true. If you deny that good exists, you are still enjoying the good of denying that there is good.
A second objection is that the universe is caused. I have to say that you have me very confused on your position here. You seem to deny that the universe had a beginning but also confirm that it did (at least from what I am seeing). So, pardon if I am having a hard time following you here. The universe (space and time) exists back to t = 0. Agreed. We know the universe exists, so there are no complaints here. My questions are if it was not caused, where did it come from? Why is there nothing at all instead of something? It makes much more sense to me that the universe is an effect that demands a cause. Frankly, to say otherwise seems downright illogical. It also makes sense that our physical laws break down at the moment of creation because prior to that moment nothing existed.
(2) I further argue that your identification of evil in the world actually requires the existence of God, otherwise you truly have no basis for declaring actions as evil. Instead, they would only be points of view, either personal or cultural. This then turned into the discussion of what is meant by objectivity. I argue that objective moral values are values that are right or wrong regardless if anybody believes they are. The rest has been quibbling about how they are related to God's nature.
The discussion about evidentialism is a spin-off of your faith-based vs. fact-based comment. I see it as a distraction to the main issue here and don't intend to pursue it further at this time. We'll leave that one for another combox.
I apologize for the length, but I wanted to reframe the various threads here before they get too frayed. Also, thanks for the exchange Damion. It has been "mildly amusing".
“I defined good as whatever is desired for its own sake.”
This is an inherently subjecivist concept of good, since desires only exist in the minds of subjects, and cannot be facts about the universe. Hence, moral fact are subjective on this account.
“Remember, the original point leading to this discussion is whether or not naturalism provides a sufficient basis for discovering truth.”
What basis might naturalism provide, if true? Seems the best we can hope for is partial rationality, and some spare time to weed out fallacies and put them aside. Luckily, we have oversized cerebellums in our skulls and time on our hands.
PChem:
It makes much more sense to me that the universe is an effect that demands a cause.
Causality contrasted with conditionals
... statements of causality require the antecedent to precede the consequent in time ...
However, there is no precede to the origin of the universe. Therefore, to talk about a "cause" of the universe is illogical.
Now, if you ask me (a Calvinist), God ordained eternity "ago" that Eve would eat the fruit. Doesn't change the fact that she was designed.
So surely human reason/reliable senses are irrelevant on this view, since all our choices are simply decided in advance and we have no control over them?
Also, have you ever heard the term "noetic effects of sin"? It has to do with the wide effects of sin on everything in creation, not just morality and character.
Yes! I've pointed out at least twice on this thread alone that it undermines any Christian claims to reliable sensory functioning - it's one of these things that you (and others) seem to be using when it suits to deflect an argument and ignoring when it becomes a problem for your view
If a potentially all pervasive means of undermining human reasoning exists (as it obviously does on Christianity), how can you (without circular reasoning) claim to know that any belief you hold isn't simply the result of sin-induced defective thinking?
I also think the dismissal of the evil God argument by claiming 'it's impossible' or 'God is just necessarily good' is very weak as well - it doesn't seem obvious that the arguments for an all good God are any better supported than the argument for an all-Evil God, and you could simply use the 'necessary truth' line for anything eg
Q:on atheism, why is hurting people for fun wrong?
A: because it's a necessary truth that hurting people for fun is wrong
whether it is actually a necessary truth or not. Not a great reason/argument, but no worse than what's been offered in defense of the good God idea
1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist.
4. Therefore, God exists.
The conclusion certainly follows from the premises, but that hardly makes the premises true!
rather obviously many people would take issue with the 1st premise (given arguments that theists have struggled with like the Euthyphro dillema it also is debatable that theism provides any basis for objective moral facts
(And as before, simply saying 'God is necessarily good isn't any better an explanation than 'hurting people for fun is necessarily wrong')
secondly, this argument would have no impact on a moral relativist or a nihilist since they could simply deny the 2nd premise
Why is there nothing at all instead of something?
Appealing to God hardly solves the problem, because then surely we want to know 'why does God exist?'
It makes much more sense to me that the universe is an effect that demands a cause.
OK, but there's no obvious connection between needing a cause to explain something and the conclusion 'therefore Jesus'
I can also think of plenty other hypotheticals that would explain it such as a finite universe bubbling off from another, infinitely existing universe, and other ideas like that
Frankly, to say otherwise seems downright illogical.
Not really, eg some ideas in quantum mechanics suggest there may be events that have no cause
It also makes sense that our physical laws break down at the moment of creation because prior to that moment nothing existed.
Just because physical laws break down at the 'moment of creation', it doesn't follow that therefore nothing existed
and surely a theist would have to agree that at least one thing did exist 'prior' to that moment!
"It makes much more sense to me that the universe is an effect that demands a cause."
If you've ever studied general relativity you will have learned that our own personal intuitions about the way things work are unreliable when dealing with the very fast and highly energetic.
If you've ever studied quantum mechanics you will have learned that our own personal intuitions about the way things work are unreliable when dealing with the very small.
If you've ever studied cosmology you will have learned that our own personal intuitions about the way things work are unreliable when dealing with the entire cosmos.
Of course, studying the origins of the universe combines all of these counterintuitive problems, and more, and thus it is really an unjustified intuitive leap to presume that your feelings about the way stuff works are rightly applied to the universe as a whole at or near t=0.
NAL,
Therefore, to talk about a "cause" of the universe is illogical.
What are you talking about? Are you saying that because time didn't exist without the universe that we shouldn't expect a cause of time and space? Are you kidding? The absence of time without the universe in no way takes away the fact that we still need a logical cause of the universe. The theist posits a plausible explanation, namely an immaterial timeless creator. The naturalist posits...the universe came into being completely uncaused out of nothing. Sorry, that's not a plausible hypothesis in the least. How a temporal event could cause itself without time is beyond me (unless there was a causative agent involved). But in all of these responses, I still haven't seen an answer of how we can know truth on naturalism.
bossmanham:
The absence of time without the universe in no way takes away the fact that we still need a logical cause of the universe.
One of the rules of causal arguments is that the cause must precede the effect in time. In other words, for A to cause B, it is necessary for A to precede B in time.
What you need is irrelevant.
What you need is irrelevant
Well if you think that's a good argument, then there really isn't anything more to say.
Care to tell us how we can rely on your "rationality" when rationality can't exist on naturalism?
One of the rules of causal arguments is that the cause must precede the effect in time. In other words, for A to cause B, it is necessary for A to precede B in time
There's a difference between a temporal cause and a logical cause. There are events that can happen simultaneously, yet one event logically precedes another. Therefore, I disagree with this statement. It doesn't have to happen "in time."
Can you give us a reason to think that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing?
I love it.
NAL says: What you need is irrelevant.
Yes, you think you need an explanation, a cause? Fools! All of you, fools! Just do the Darwin, dude. Stop asking so many tough questions.
“Can you give us a reason to think that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing?”
I can think of a few reasons, but it comes down to whether the universe is open, closed, or flat.
Krauss explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Now as to the idea of a 'logical' as opposed to an ordinary temporal cause, I don't think it's been defined here, and I doubt that it admits of any coherent meaning.
“There are events that can happen simultaneously, yet one event logically precedes another.”
Can you provide an example, other than the a ball sitting on a cushion?
Right, if the universe as is doesn't fit your preconceived notions, just posit an "open" universe and ignore the huge questions that raises. Typical naturalist tap-dance.
bossmanham:
There's a difference between a temporal cause and a logical cause. There are events that can happen simultaneously, yet one event logically precedes another.
Logical cause? Like A logically causes B? Then ~B would logically cause ~A. Got it.
Rho:
Yes, you think you need an explanation, a cause?
The answer to cosmic questions must satify your needs. You need a cause therefore, there must be a cause. Logic be damned.
Rho - You'll find that Krauss addresses these 'huge' questions head on, if you care to watch, and does not posit an open universe in the process.
Here's a 'small' question: Can anyone give an example of a logical but atemporal cause?
Part 1
Damion, Dr. F, and NAL,
I apologize for the second delay. I've been sick (and sort of still am). Here are some brief responses:
Damion:
Seems the best we can hope for is partial rationality, and some spare time to weed out fallacies and put them aside. Luckily, we have oversized cerebellums in our skulls and time on our hands.
This is my point. Partial rationality based on naturalism alone can't guarantee you that you have arrived at truth. It only shows what constitutes survival, and that need not necessarily be true. See the volcano example again. Furthermore, even if you have acquired some truth, how do you know what it is? Seems like this leaves you in a state of agnosticism. Why be so dogmatic that naturalism is correct, given that naturalism itself doesn't necessarily guarantee true beliefs?
NAL:
... statements of causality require the antecedent to precede the consequent in time ...
However, there is no precede to the origin of the universe. Therefore, to talk about a "cause" of the universe is illogical.
1. The universe existed at the first moment of time, and that is most likely the moment the universe was created.
2. You still haven't addressed where the universe came from. Did it arrise from nothing without causal action? We know the universe exists, so how did it get here? How do you plan to get around the metaphysical principle that being doesn't arise from non-being?
3. I agree that if a B theory of time (time is tenseless) is correct, then this argument is flawed. It does rely on an A theory of time (time is tensed and temporal becoming is possible). Even if the kalam cosmological argument is flawed, the Leibinizian version is still valid since it does not rely on a theory of time. Here it is in case you haven't seen it before:
(1) Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
(2) If the universe has an explanation of its own existence, that explanation is God.
(3) The universe is an existing thing.
(4) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
You need a cause therefore, there must be a cause. Logic be damned.
Haha, call me crazy but I thought we as truth-seekers were after explanations for stuff. You're apparently happy with incomplete explanations that leave your atheism untouched.
Part 2
Dr. F:
how can you (without circular reasoning) claim to know that any belief you hold isn't simply the result of sin-induced defective thinking?
In and of ourselves, we would be hopelessly lost with no way out of this. We would be in the same boat as the naturalist here. But, we are not alone. There is a God who is necessarily good. This makes all the difference in the two world views.
struggled with like the Euthyphro dillema
THe Euthyphro dillema is a false dillema. This has been clearly and cleanly dealt with by William Lane Craig at reasonablefaith.com. It is discussed in question numbers 44, 46, and especially 65 and 66. I believe you have to sign up to read them, but he says it WAY better than I ever will.
it also is debatable that theism provides any basis for objective moral facts
The whole argument is that God's nature provides the basis.
(And as before, simply saying 'God is necessarily good isn't any better an explanation than 'hurting people for fun is necessarily wrong')
I don't think you have to just "say it," because I think it is logically necessary that if God exists then he is good.
secondly, this argument would have no impact on a moral relativist or a nihilist since they could simply deny the 2nd premise.
Then how can a moral relativist or a nihilist argue that evil is evidence against God when they deny that evil exists? Also, I think the reality of life rounds off the very harsh corners of a nihilist or moral relativist and they don't actually live up to their world view. More pointedly, do you think some things are evil for all people? How could you know this apart from an external, objective standard?
Why is there nothing at all instead of something?
Appealing to God hardly solves the problem, because then surely we want to know 'why does God exist?'
God necessarily exists if he does in fact exist.
OK, but there's no obvious connection between needing a cause to explain something and the conclusion 'therefore Jesus'
Right now I am merely arguing that theism is correct (not Christian theism in particular). There are good reasons why Christian theism is correct, but those aren't involved in these arguments. Let's not put the cart too far in front of horse here.
I can also think of plenty other hypotheticals that would explain it such as a finite universe bubbling off from another, infinitely existing universe, and other ideas like that
Really? Let's think about this some. Surely, the other infinitely existing universe would have to have the potential to create our universe. However, if it has this potential, why is our universe finitely old? Seems like the infinite universe would have to be personal to create a universe with a finite past. Consider a simple example. A freezer has the potential to freeze water. Yet this is an impersonal potentiality. If I put water in it, it will freeze without delay. Only a personal choice by the freezer could restrict freezing by preventing the potentiality from becoming actuality. Surely, you don't think the other universe is personal do you?
Part 3
Not really, eg some ideas in quantum mechanics suggest there may be events that have no cause
1. Not all scientists are convinced of the copenhagen interpretation. Surely, the majority are right now, but there are attempts to develop a deterministic formulation of quantum mechanics. For example, see Bohm's attempt.
2. Even this cause is coming from nothing. Nothing is what a rock thinks about. The quantum effects you refer to are indeterministic events, but they do not originate from "nothing."
Just because physical laws break down at the 'moment of creation', it doesn't follow that therefore nothing existed
So what was it?
and surely a theist would have to agree that at least one thing did exist 'prior' to that moment!
Agree with you here, BUT that this has been my point all along. That something is there (God is there) and he is responsible for the universe.
Damion (again):
I am aware of these, most intimately with quantum mechanics (see above), but I have casually studied the other two. Yes, they are counter intuitive at times. However, this does not lead me to deny that the universe exists. If it exists it demands a cause for its existence either in its own necessity of being or in an external cause. You can't get around this. Do you think the universe's existence is necessary in and of itself or is there an external cause? Is it eternal and necessary or not?
Cheers!
If [the universe] exists it demands a cause for its existence either in its own necessity of being or in an external cause.
I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly mean "cause for its existence" in its usual sense here. A cause is always something made of matter/energy operating within space over time to produce and effect upon something else made of matter/energy. The universe (including the whole of matter/energy and space/time) cannot possibly have a "cause for its existence" in this sense. I seem to recall typing this in once already, and you've yet to provide a new definition of causation. You can't get around this. You have to stipulate a new definition or else you are mired in logical incoherence.
Now that we've disposed of ordinary spatiotemporal causation as a possible explanation, do you have an affirmative argument that universes cannot spring into being except by mysterious means of atemporal immaterial mystical meta-minds?
Partial rationality based on naturalism alone can't guarantee you that you have arrived at truth.
I never claimed that naturalism (or any worldview or epistemic methodology) can guarantee us that we will find truth. We are constantly adding to our knowledge of the world and revising our understanding. Part of the psychological appeal of revealed religion is that illusion that it can guarantee you an unchanging truth.
It only shows what constitutes survival, and that need not necessarily be true. See the volcano example again.
Please revisit my ‘pooping outside of camp’ example for a non-hypothetical illustration of the difference between biblical magical and modern scientific thinking. You either bury your excrement outside of camp because there are pathogens and predators in the real world, or else you can appeal to an invisible spirit that abhors human waste. That said, I take your point that survival value is enhanced by irrational magical thinking, but you have to see that this cuts against theism rather than in its favor, inasmuch as it explains some of the survival value of theistic memes.
Furthermore, even if you have acquired some truth, how do you know what it is?
I’m always open to revising my views, as I have done more than once before. The thing about agnostics and freethinkers is that we generally welcome more evidence and do not claim to know anything on faith.
Why be so dogmatic that naturalism is correct, given that naturalism itself doesn't necessarily guarantee true beliefs?
As I said before, the world is just as I might expect to observe if naturalism were true. More developed arguments may be found here.
Rho:
You're apparently happy with incomplete explanations that leave your atheism untouched.
And you're apparently happy with illogical explanations that leave your theism untouched.
A cause is always something made of matter/energy operating within space over time to produce and effect upon something else made of matter/energy.
Because you said so. Because you assume naturalism, when that's the very question at hand.
Because that's your religion and you're sticking to it.
PChem:
2. You still haven't addressed where the universe came from. Did it arrise from nothing without causal action? We know the universe exists, so how did it get here?
I have no idea. But, apparently, an incoherent explanation is somehow better than no explanation.
Any explanation that humans can understand is bound to have logical contradictions. Our understanding is based on space/time, and anything not of space/time will appear incoherent.
Humans just don't have the concepts to understand the very beginning of the universe. That's why it's so funny to watch theists try to explain the origin of the universe using concepts that come from space/time.
“Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence.”
You can pick anything at all: a table, a planet, a sunbeam, a baby and the explanation is essentially this:
1) Some time ago…
2) Energy and matter acted over time…
3) So as to produce _____.
And that is the full explanation of the existence of _____, minus the particulars.
It really should be obvious why this sort of thinking cannot be validly applied to the whole of spacetime and all the matter/energy therein. The fallacy of composition looms large and ominous here, and cannot be averted by (once again) changing the phrasing of the key premise.
Because you assume naturalism, when that's the very question at hand.
Because we've not seen *ANY* supernatural causes. Well, I've not seen any. Maybe you have. Healed anyone with prayer lately? Cast out any demons? Walked on water?
The possibilities for supernatural causation abound, and you've yet to point to anything other than myths in books.
You know, I am being a bit unfair here, as I've not given you guys a chance to demonstrate the supernatural minds that exist and are mysteriously causal in the world. Here's a test that should prove very easy if you've even one angel or demon or ghost or deity on your side. I've written down a 66-digit number in a safe place. If you can tell me what it is, I'll concede that naturalism is false right here on the spot.
Hint: It is an even number.
Part 1
I'm sorry, but you cannot possibly mean "cause for its existence" in its usual sense here. A cause is always something made of matter/energy operating within space over time to produce and effect upon something else made of matter/energy.
1. I cited a definition of cause from a philosophy textbook. I also cited effect from a dictionary. Neither had matter/energy as a component of the definition. I see no reason to accept your definition.
2. At some point you have to explain why the universe is here. This is a basic philosophical question that a valid world view should be able to handle.
and you've yet to provide a new definition of causation.
I defined cause and effect and neither required what you demand. Also, requiring causes to be material in origin seems to be a natural outworking of your core presuppositions about the world (see Rho).
Now that we've disposed of ordinary spatiotemporal causation as a possible explanation, do you have an affirmative argument that universes cannot spring into being except by mysterious means of atemporal immaterial mystical meta-minds?
Well, there are basically only a three options: (1) the universe is a necessary object. However, it seems that the universe is a contigent object. Certainly, it is possible that the world not exist. Furthermore, why is the universe only finite in age if it has the inherent potential to form itself? Further, how does the potentiality exist if prior to the universe there is nothing? This gets back to my now trice repeated question, is the universe eternal or not? (2) The universe needs an external cause. This is clearly my position (this is articulated by the Lebinizian version of the cosmological argument). (3) The universe exists as some inexplicable brute contigent thing. This is saying that the universe is neither necessary nor caused by external objects. Aside from the massive problems associated with this approach, it implicitly recognizes that if the universe has an explanation then it must be God.
I am still waiting for you explanation, on naturalistic grounds, as to why the universe is here rather than nothing.
Part 2
I never claimed that naturalism (or any worldview or epistemic methodology) can guarantee us that we will find truth. We are constantly adding to our knowledge of the world and revising our understanding. Part of the psychological appeal of revealed religion is that illusion that it can guarantee you an unchanging truth.
Again, you assume that naturalism is truth, yet you have no way of knowing this. It is a metaphysical claim about the world that likely has zero selection pressure. How do you know that it is even right? On one hand you say naturalism is correct, but then you turn around and say that we can't even know if this is right or not. Can't you see how vacuous this is?
I’m always open to revising my views, as I have done more than once before. The thing about agnostics and freethinkers is that we generally welcome more evidence and do not claim to know anything on faith.
You don't know anything on faith? That's a bit strong don't you think?
As I said before, the world is just as I might expect to observe if naturalism were true. More developed arguments may be found here.
This is what I was driving at in the fact/faith discussion earlier. The world is a body of bare facts and a world view systematizes those facts inot a coherent picture. Wildly different worldviews systematize the SAME facts in different ways and can do so coherently. The fact the world is what you expect given naturalism is not surprising to me. In fact, I can state with the same confidence that the world is exactly what I expect to see within Christian theism. You wouldn't accept my claim as proof that Christian theism is correct in the same way I reject yours. The problem is that evidence as you are using it here doesn't rise above a worldview. Really, this gets down to core presuppositions and whether or not those presuppositions are good ones or not.
I am still waiting for you to get back to the argument for God based on morality as well as the argument for God based on the presence of evil (they are really the same argument).
The thing about agnostics and freethinkers is that we generally welcome more evidence and do not claim to know anything on faith.
A less self-aware statement one will rarely hear.
That's why it's so funny to watch theists try to explain the origin of the universe using concepts that come from space/time.
Hmm...Quentin Smith seems interested in this problem and he's no theist.
Also, I maintain that claiming ignorance is not enough. A good worldview should be able to deal with where the universe (and ultimately you and me) came from. I don't think this is setting the bar to high.
A less self-aware statement one will rarely hear.
I was thinking the same thing!
PChem:
Also, I maintain that claiming ignorance is not enough. A good worldview should be able to deal with where the universe (and ultimately you and me) came from.
"Where" is a space/time concept and has no meaning when applied to the origin of the universe.
So, the wrong answer is better than admitting ignorance? A made-up answer is better than admitting ignorance? I disagree.
Again, you assume that naturalism is truth, yet you have no way of knowing this.
Once again, I gave various arguments as to why I think naturalism is true. You don’t have to accept them, but it is a bit silly to keep repeating “you assume” as if the argumentum ad nauseam is going to make it stick.
It is a metaphysical claim about the world that likely has zero selection pressure.
I did not claim that any particular claims about the world are subject to selective pressure. Natural selection operates on the neural network as a whole, or more precisely, the genes which express themselves so as to build it. Networks that can detect certain truths which are adaptive, e.g. “it is good to poop outside of camp” will do better than those that do not. It is unclear to me whether naturalism or supernaturalism (taken as a whole) are adaptive or maladaptive. Certainly the methodological naturalism driving evidence-based medicine is beating the pants off of faith-healing, even if Lourdes is every bit as amazing as I’ve heard. The question is not, though, whether metaphysical claims are selected, but rather whether the neural network that was selected will be able to rationally process certain kinds of propositional claims. This is a scientific research question, which is why I referred you to the literature on the Wason selection task as a classic example.
You don't know anything on faith?
If knowledge is justified true belief, I cannot know anything for which I lack ample justification.
…this gets down to core presuppositions and whether or not those presuppositions are good ones or not.
Naturalists have to make the same presumptions that all humans do, fairly early in life:
1) The outside world is really there, and not merely illusory.
2) It is observable with our senses, which are somewhat reliable.
3) We can make inferences about the world with our minds, which are somewhat reliable.
Classical theists must make a additional presumptions, such as:
0) There exists an invisible ineffable immaterial atemporal all-powerful super-mind which accounts for (1)-(3)
I haven't seen any good reason to presume presupposition (0), not as yet. I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong very easily, with a good deal less typing than you are doing now.
I am still waiting for you to get back to the argument for God based on morality
I am still waiting on you to define "objective morality" in a way that doesn't flagrantly beg the question.
You argument has the desired conclusion built in as a premise, and it is this:
"Moral propositions exist in objectively, that is to say, they exist in the mind of God."
Obviously, I would contend that moral propositions have been show to exist (so far) only in human minds, and so I cannot accept your premise.
Consider the moral proposition "It is wrong to poop in camp." Now, either this is pragmatic advice which assumes that the advisee does not want to deal with the unfortunate and possibly unforeseeable consequences of defecating in camp, or else it a moral proposition straight from the mind of the creator of the entire cosmos. There might be other possibilities, but I happen to favor the former. The U.S. Forest Service has a webpage on all the good reasons to bring a spade with you and walk well outside of camp, while the Bible has a straightforward divine command. I'm sorry but it seems altogether obvious to me that this moral statement is grounded in practical human desires rather than revealed from heaven.
PChem -
Can you please *REPOST* your philsophical defintion of 'cause' which does not refer to matter/energy operating over time? I cannot find it right now, but I'd wager without looking that it incorporates time and matter by implication in its terms.
As to your argument, it does not seem to me that the phrases “necessary object” and “cause external to the universe” carry any meaning whatsoever. You’re just not making sense to me here. How can any material object at all be logically necessary? How can something temporally cause anything to happen 'outside' of both space and time? You’ve crossed an ineffable invisible line from abstraction into incoherence. Until you define these phrases coherently, I cannot comment on the premises at all.
A less self-aware statement one will rarely hear.
Ah the inevitable ad hom. It surely doesn't bolster your case that you've an all-wise benevolent being giving you ineffable truth when you (both) resort to personal attacks.
I've a personal limit to how much of this I tolerate before leaving a thread. As I said before, I'm here for fun.
1) Ad hominems are not fallacies. ABUSIVE ones are, but that's not one of those.
2) And it wasn't directed at YOU, the man (you know, the "hominem"). It was directed at your *statement*.
3) That said, your last comment did succeed in being less self-aware than the previous, so well done on that count.
4) You said:
If knowledge is justified true belief, I cannot know anything for which I lack ample justification.
That is a statement you can't possibly prove. Ergo, it's faith.
Peace,
Rhology
The U.S. Forest Service has a webpage on all the good reasons to bring a spade with you and walk well outside of camp, while the Bible has a straightforward divine command.
I wonder if we will wait in vain for you to demonstrate that you understand how the context of that biblical command affects your argument.
Statements can be self-aware, Rho? I thought only people could do that.
Way to step it up though, by adding another insult. I’m out.
p.s. PChem – You are welcome to comment on my blog if you want to keep this up.
Wow, sensitive, are we?
Yes, comments can demonstrate self-awareness.
And no response to my last comment. See you.
Here's Damion's link - something messed it up in his comment.
2. At some point you have to explain why the universe is here. This is a basic philosophical question that a valid world view should be able to handle.
well the invisible pink unicorn would 'explain' it as well as the Christian God, but all that shows is that simply putting forward a content free explanation (and one in itself that would also require an explanation) for the sake of having one is not always better than admitting ignorance.
either way there are quite a lot of hypothetical ways the universe could have arisen in cosmological physics that would be compatible with atheism (I mentioned one possibility before)
you may also be committing the fallacy of composition, expecting that the whole should work like the parts
secondly, you've insisted on internal critique before as the standard, however you are imposing an external standard here - that for a worldview to be valid "it must have an explanation of fact X". but what if I don't think this is a concern in my worldview, who is anyone else to impose an external standard on what must and must not be explained by my worldview?
well the invisible pink unicorn would 'explain' it as well as the Christian God
I expect better from you than this!
What do you know about the IPU and how do you know it? I'll expect you to answer this since you claim IPU can answer the question just as well as the Xtian God. Get to it.
either way there are quite a lot of hypothetical ways the universe could have arisen in cosmological physics that would be compatible with atheism
To which do you subscribe?
If none, why would I subscribe to one since you apparently think they are all insufficiently meritorious to warrant your subscription?
you may also be committing the fallacy of composition, expecting that the whole should work like the parts
Ah yes, just b/c we want an explanation for the parts shouldn't mean that an explanation for the whole is important to seek out. How silly of you, PChem!
that for a worldview to be valid "it must have an explanation of fact X". but what if I don't think this is a concern in my worldview, who is anyone else to impose an external standard on what must and must not be explained by my worldview?
Do you really want to take that on as part of your worldview? You're welcome to it if you want to profess that seeking out causes and facts is unimportant. Checked disney.com recently? What are you doing on this boring blog?
"Just because physical laws break down at the 'moment of creation', it doesn't follow that therefore nothing existed"
So what was it?
This is irrelevant - I'm pointing out your conclusion does not follow from the premise.
My inability to tell you doesn't support what you are saying. If you think (in the absence of God) this means the universe would have to have arisen from nothing if we aren't going with the God 'explanation'), then you have to prove this not assert it.
basically you're committing both the argument from ignorance fallacy (ie if I can't tell you what it was, it must mean the only option is is that there was nothing) and a false dichotmoy - ie God or nothing, when there could be other options available
"and surely a theist would have to agree that at least one thing did exist 'prior' to that moment!"
Agree with you here, BUT that this has been my point all along. That something is there (God is there) and he is responsible for the universe.
But this just begs the question "why does God exist?" (note I'm not saying he was created, I'm asking why he exists. if it's just a brute fact, you can hardly object to atheists making the same claim!)
all you've done is replaced one unexplained fact with another unexplained fact
you say 'because God necessarily exists', I just reply 'something necessarily exists' - it may simply be that it's illogical to think there can be non-existence
As for the Wm Lane Craig refutation of Euthyphro, I'll see if i can find it - to be honest though from what I've read of theistic solutions to things like the contradictions inherent in the incarnation, the trinity or attempts to defend theism as an objective moral basis they seem to be pretty poor. i read quite a bit of stuff on attempts to justify that the incarnation wasn't a contradiction (or some that said it was apparently contradictory, but this fact was to be embraced rather than rejected!), but none of it was convincing. I'd imagine if it wasn't to do with their religious beliefs people would never go to these bizarre lengths to defend rather obviously incoherent ideas.
I don't really see how simply saying God is the definition of good is any better than saying 'X is good just because it is' - it's not really saying anything.
What do you know about the IPU and how do you know it?
i have a logical proof, it's called TAI - transcendental argument for the IPU. the proof is the impossibility of the contrary. Apparently that's good enough to prove TGoTB, so presumably it must prove IPU.
But then you know I'm obviously not promoting it as an argument, I'm pointing out that it's no less vacuous than the 'Christian God did it' explanation since it just replaces one unexplained fact with another unexplained fact
To which do you subscribe?
If none, why would I subscribe to one since you apparently think they are all insufficiently meritorious to warrant your subscription?
I don't particularly subscribe to one because primarily because I don't know a whole lot about physics - because you know, physics takes time and effort to learn and has some hard to grasp concepts
but then obviously there's not a whole lot of research required to throw out a 'God did it' answer to any question
Ah yes, just b/c we want an explanation for the parts shouldn't mean that an explanation for the whole is important to seek out. How silly of you, PChem!
beside the point - the fallacy of composition is to assume the whole behaves like the parts. however, the whole may not in this case, so the question being asked may not be valid (it may be, but this isn't guaranteed)
Do you really want to take that on as part of your worldview? You're welcome to it if you want to profess that seeking out causes and facts is unimportant. Checked disney.com recently? What are you doing on this boring blog?
irrelevant - it's just to show that the 'internal critique' point is hokum, since apologists wish to impose external standards on other worldviews.
So, the wrong answer is better than admitting ignorance? A made-up answer is better than admitting ignorance? I disagree.
I'm losing track of who I posted what to. Please refer to the Lebinizian version of the cosmological argument. It does not rely on the beginning of the universe. At any rate, I get it that you won't accept that modern science has pretty much come down that universe, including space and time is finite. Now its up to your worldview to deal with it.
Lastly, you display a remarkable amount of faith in that even though you don't know why the universe exists or how it got here, you certainly know that isn't God who did it. The universe must have a naturalistic origin.
It is unclear to me whether naturalism or supernaturalism (taken as a whole) are adaptive or maladaptive.
or totally neutral.
Certainly the methodological naturalism driving evidence-based medicine is beating the pants off of faith-healing
To set the record straight, methodolical naturalism as used in science is not solely the property of philosophical naturalism. Christianity has always held that God is one of order who established physical laws. As such, one should expect to get a lot of mileage out of methodological naturalism even within Christianity. However, one has to realize that if we are restricted to only naturalistic answers, as methodological naturalism requires, then we are begging the question when it comes to asking whether philosophical naturalism is true or false based on those answers. This is precisely for the same reason why I can't say God exists because He told us so in the Bible. It is begging the question.
The question is not, though, whether metaphysical claims are selected, but rather whether the neural network that was selected will be able to rationally process certain kinds of propositional claims.
You still have to address whether or not the truth claims you reach are in fact true and which ones they are. I don't think you have carried the burden of proof here.
presuppositions...1), 2), 3
You missed one. Material objects are all that exist. Why else would you think that methodological naturalism must entail philosophical naturalism in a non question begging sense?
I am still waiting on you to define "objective morality" in a way that doesn't flagrantly beg the question.
I totally disagree.
1. It is an if...then statement. You don't have to accept it if you deny the second premise.
Clearly if God does not exist then there cannot be objective standards (objective being where it is right or wrong regardless of whether anyone believes it).
2. You deny there is an objective moral standard, but you maintain the presence of evil in the world. Why? What gives you the right to declare something as evil? You rightly recognize that human morality would be totally subjective. But, if you want to go around declaring things right or wrong, then you MUST have something that is right or wrong for ALL people regardless of whether or not they explicitly or implicitly acknowledge it. I think it is intuitive that evil exists.
Just for clarification sake, the moral standard is rooted in God's nature and his divine commands flow from his nature.
You are free to deal with the argument whenever you wish.
p.s. PChem – You are welcome to comment on my blog if you want to keep this up.
Don't know if your last comment was serious or not. At any rate, it is probably best that this wind down for me. I have to start the next semester next week, and I have a few research papers that need my attention so I can get them out the door. Thank you for the exchange.
I will keep an eye on your blog and may show up now and then.
PChem:
Lastly, you display a remarkable amount of faith in that even though you don't know why the universe exists or how it got here, you certainly know that isn't God who did it. The universe must have a naturalistic origin.
I am not certain that it isn't God who did it. I'm saying that the argument, that God did it, is illogical and incoherent. That the universe must have a naturalistic origin is also illogical and incoherent.
Any explanation that uses space/time concepts, such as "cause", is going to be incoherent. But those are the concepts that are being used in your worldview. And those are the concepts that make your explanation acceptable to many. It's apparently more important that the explanation be appealing than coherent.
If there is a god who did it, then that god would not be understandable based on our concepts, and hence, not acceptable. Any religion, that is based on an unacceptable concept of God, even if true, would not survive.
PChem:
As such, one should expect to get a lot of mileage out of methodological naturalism even within Christianity.
So, methodological naturalism is acceptable when it provides explanations that can save or prolong your life, but unacceptable when it provides explanations of the origins of species or the age of the universe.
Post a Comment