19 May 11
Ironically, in order to affirm that naturalism is warranted, we must presuppose God's existence. If naturalism is true, our cognitive faculties will be aimed at survival, not at producing true beliefs (see Alvin Plantinga's, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). Therefore, according to its own commitments, naturalism cannot have warrant. In order to establish rational warrant for naturalism one must appeal to something beyond the commitments of naturalism; namely, to cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs (which, on naturalism, evolution cannot sufficiently guarantee). To affirm naturalism's warrant, the atheist must invoke that which presupposes true-belief producing cognitive faculties; namely, God, since only God's design can serve to give warrant to our belief that our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs.
Any takers?
19 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am far from sure that I follow you, but it looks like a whole lot of nonsense to me.
Ironically, in order to affirm that naturalism is warranted, we must presuppose God's existence. If naturalism is true, our cognitive faculties will be aimed at survival, not at producing true beliefs (see Alvin Plantinga's, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). Therefore, according to its own commitments, naturalism cannot have warrant. In order ...[text shortened]... our belief that our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs.
Any takers?
1. Whatever evolution causes our cognitive faculties to be 'aimed at' seems hardly relevant. What matters is are we capable of true beliefs and how do we determine this. I don't think that looking at where we came from is of any use in this regard.
2. Your conclusion that God is the only explanation for something seems ridiculous. Surely you mean some being / entity with a given attribute or set of attributes (shared by your God)? What are those attributes? How do you know they are the sole possibility?
19 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think Epi has reviewed exceedingly briefly a lecture of six videos.
I am far from sure that I follow you, but it looks like a whole lot of nonsense to me.
1. Whatever evolution causes our cognitive faculties to be 'aimed at' seems hardly relevant. What matters is are we capable of true beliefs and how do we determine this. I don't think that looking at where we came from is of any use in this regard.
2. Your conclusion ...[text shortened]... hared by your God)? What are those attributes? How do you know they are the sole possibility?
An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - Dr. Alvin Plantingo
His argument is that Naturalism and Evolutionism are not complimentary of each other. They are in fact antagonistic to each other. One cannot coherently be both committed to Naturalism and Evolutionary theory. The combined pair, he says, are referencially self defeating.
If the pair are true then we cannot trust our cognitive falculties.
19 May 11
I don't understand your argument.
You say that evolution is not sufficient to guarantee "cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs". But unless something prevents evolution from EVER achieving "cognitive faculties aimed at producing true beliefs" by itself, then naturalism can still be true.
19 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasSeems like a desire to understand ones environment would be advantageous to survival. Seems like a lack of understanding of ones environment is, on balance, disadvantageous to survival.
Ironically, in order to affirm that naturalism is warranted, we must presuppose God's existence. If naturalism is true, our cognitive faculties will be aimed at survival, not at producing true beliefs (see Alvin Plantinga's, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). Therefore, according to its own commitments, naturalism cannot have warrant. In order ...[text shortened]... our belief that our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs.
Any takers?
You seem to be lacking a solid foundation for your assertion.
19 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasDidn't we already have an entire thread devoted to P's argument, in which Lord Shark, I, and others already gave some of our assessment regarding why and where P's argument fails? What are you bringing to the table this time in terms of new material or new considerations?
Ironically, in order to affirm that naturalism is warranted, we must presuppose God's existence. If naturalism is true, our cognitive faculties will be aimed at survival, not at producing true beliefs (see Alvin Plantinga's, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). Therefore, according to its own commitments, naturalism cannot have warrant. In order ...[text shortened]... our belief that our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs.
Any takers?
19 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehas“....If naturalism is true, our cognitive faculties will be aimed at survival, not at producing true beliefs ...”
Ironically, in order to affirm that naturalism is warranted, we must presuppose God's existence. If naturalism is true, our cognitive faculties will be aimed at survival, not at producing true beliefs (see Alvin Plantinga's, Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism). Therefore, according to its own commitments, naturalism cannot have warrant. In order ...[text shortened]... our belief that our cognitive faculties are aimed at producing true beliefs.
Any takers?
why would “cognitive faculties” that help us survive necessarily be in conflict with producing true beliefs?
After all, a tendency to produce true beliefs as opposed to being delusional is surely almost always (if not simply always) GOOD for survival!
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense.
19 May 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have yet to hear a reasonable and logical reason as to
Didn't we already have an entire thread devoted to P's argument, in which Lord Shark, I, and others already gave some of our assessment regarding why and where P's argument fails? What are you bringing to the table this time in terms of new material or new considerations?
why God did not create the universe. Until I do, I will
continue to believe in the Holy Bible and the creator God.
19 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThat would be okay if you happened to have good reasons for believing in the holy bible and the creator god. What are those reasons, exactly? You never seem to provide any. When you engage abductive reasoning, you should consider what the evidence at your disposal recommends (if it recommends anything) holistically as the best, most plausible explanation. You should not just latch on to one particular candidate explanation that you happen to fancy and then stick your head in the proverbial sand.
I have yet to hear a reasonable and logical reason as to
why God did not create the universe. Until I do, I will
continue to believe in the Holy Bible and the creator God.
By the way, your comment seems tangential.
19 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSay an animal needs to escape from a preditor. Ie. a monkey needs to avoid being eaten by a lion.
“....If naturalism is true, our cognitive faculties will be aimed at survival, not at producing true beliefs ...”
why would “cognitive faculties” that help us survive necessarily be in conflict with producing true beliefs?
After all, a tendency to produce true beliefs as opposed to being delusional is surely almost always (if not simply always) GOOD for survival!
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense.
It needs the proper belief / reaction pair to set its body in motion to avoid being eaten. Now the argument is that as long as the belief / action gets the monkey's body away from the preditor, it will survive. The reason for its removal may be based on a right belief or a wrong belief. Evolution couldn't give a flip as long as the body of the monkey is removed from the monkey eater.
Now here are some belief pairs that might yield effect for monkey survival:
1.) The monkey is afraid that the preditor is going to harm it. So it gets away.
Good.
2.) The monkey thinks the preditor and the monkey are in a race, so the monkey takes off to win the race.
Also good.
3.) The monkey regards the preditor as a playmate, perhaps like a big furry cat. And the monkey runs to get the preditor to chase it and play some more.
Also good.
Evolution couldn't care less if the monkey's belief is factual or not. As long as the proper response of getting the monkey's body out of there, evolution doesn't care.
The argument is something like that. What Evolution needs is simply the right move of the organism. Whether that move has as its bases a belief that is true or a belief that is false doesn't matter.
The argument is something like that. Naturalism and Evolution as a pair logically lead to realization that our cognitive falculties cannot be trusted to realize what is true. They can only be useful to yield the benefitial response of the organizim which leads to its survival.
What we regard as truth then about man is not reliable. Only what has yielded the appropriate benefitial survival reaction can be trusted.
Six videos to the lecture. And he does a much better job than I do.
19 May 11
Originally posted by jaywillThese kinds of isolated examples are cute, but remember that we are involved in all sorts of challenges and situations all the time, and one's beliefs, of course, have to hang together in a coherent way all the time. It is totally implausible that evolution would provide us with a cognitive apparatus that produces a preponderance of false beliefs that just happen to hang together in a coherent way while at the same time affording us the right kind of adaptive behavior across all those numerous challenges (and challenge types) we face and have faced. It is actually profoundly implausible if you really consider it. On the other hand, true beliefs necessarily hang together in a natural way.
Say an animal needs to escape from a preditor. Ie. a monkey needs to avoid being eaten by a lion.
It needs the proper belief / reaction pair to set its body in motion to avoid being eaten. Now the argument is that as long as the belief / action gets the monkey's body away from the preditor, it will survive. The reason for its removal may be based on a ...[text shortened]... nd he does a much better job than I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79SPvsZp1tY
20 May 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo reasonable and logical reason given there.
That would be okay if you happened to have good reasons for believing in the holy bible and the creator god. What are those reasons, exactly? You never seem to provide any. When you engage abductive reasoning, you should consider what the evidence at your disposal recommends (if it recommends anything) holistically as the best, most plausible explanati ...[text shortened]... y and then stick your head in the proverbial sand.
By the way, your comment seems tangential.
So God 1 evolutionists 0.