20 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by IshDaGeggIn the question, both the null hypothesis and the alternative assume existence. So the question of existence is not relevant to answer that particular question.
No it isn't.
On the basis of what do you adjudge it more or less likely that the evolutionary process will produce the capacity to entertain true beliefs?
On the basis that entertaining "true beliefs" (or as close to the truth as possible) leads to a much more adaptable species. Deluding yourself can be advantageous as long as the environment doesn't change much, but when it changes it's very unlikely that the delusion remains advantageous. A species that can gauge the truth better, will be able to recognize the change more adequately.
20 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaTruth, reality or both? You're talking in circles, on one side claiming evolution has no purpose, then speaking in terms which demand the same. Your perspective requires a blurred line between goals and objectives, both interchangeable with one another as it suits your argument--- rendering your position impotent. You can neither explain the persistence of life nor why evolution 'considers' life a thing to hold.
In the question, both the null hypothesis and the alternative assume existence. So the question of existence is not relevant to answer that particular question.
On the basis that entertaining "true beliefs" (or as close to the truth as possible) leads to a much more adaptable species. Deluding yourself can be advantageous as long as the environment doesn' ...[text shortened]... ecies that can gauge the truth better, will be able to recognize the change more adequately.
20 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOutcomes and purposes are not the same. Try again.
Truth, reality or both? You're talking in circles, on one side claiming evolution has no purpose, then speaking in terms which demand the same. Your perspective requires a blurred line between goals and objectives, both interchangeable with one another as it suits your argument--- rendering your position impotent. You can neither explain the persistence of life nor why evolution 'considers' life a thing to hold.
20 May 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA river has no purpose. It does not desire to reach the sea or erode the rock over which it runs. Yet it does have processes and outcomes.
Truth, reality or both? You're talking in circles, on one side claiming evolution has no purpose, then speaking in terms which demand the same. Your perspective requires a blurred line between goals and objectives, both interchangeable with one another as it suits your argument--- rendering your position impotent. You can neither explain the persistence of life nor why evolution 'considers' life a thing to hold.
It may be useful at times to treat the river as a single entity and even at times to talk as if it has a purpose, but we should not forget that it is really only a bunch of water molecules following rules (a process).
20 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut it seems that evolution has furnished us with a cognitive apparatus that produces false beliefs.
But it seems that evolution has furnished us with a cognitive apparatus that produces false beliefs. The fact that they don't 'hang together' doesn't seem to bother most people. Of course I don't think we have a preponderance of false beliefs, nor is true belief impossible nor rare.
However the obvious fact that some people hold some false beliefs seems to argue against the claim in the OP that Gods existence guarantees true belief.
Sure, in many cases, but not on the whole (as you yourself agree in your subsequent comments). And, at any rate, your comment is not relevant to what I claimed. I never claimed that evolution would furnish us with cognitive apparatus that generates only true beliefs. What I claimed is that it is very implausible that evolution would furnish us with cognitive apparatus that produces a preponderance of false beliefs that both (1) are on the whole consistent (or "hang together" in a way that is on the whole coherent) and (2) conduce to the right adaptive behavior across the wide range or spectrum of situations that we face.
However the obvious fact that some people hold some false beliefs seems to argue against the claim in the OP that Gods existence guarantees true belief.
Yes, that fact would go against any system that holds both (1) God exists and (2) God's existence guarantees true belief. But, you are wrong if you think (1) & (2) is what the OP is claiming. (And it is most certainly not what Plantinga claims in his argument on this subject.) Nowhere does Plantinga argue that God's existence "guarantees true belief". His arguments are about characteristically reliable cognition, not about perfect cognition. His idea of what it is for us to be reliable cognizers (over a very large cognitive terrain) certainly admits that we can come to many false beliefs on many matters. So, this is no big whoop against his argument.
20 May 11
Originally posted by IshDaGeggGod did not create us with the purpose of forming true beliefs.
If we say God created us with the purpose of forming true beliefs, but we observe that a lot of people have a lot of false beliefs, what does that say about God's handiwork?
He created us to love Him. That is why He gave us free will.
He has provided us with a guide toward true beliefs; but
since He created us with free will, we have chosen our own way.
20 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere does the probability argument come into it and where is your calculation of the odds?
I don't trust the convictions of a humans mind. Who does? You surely don't as you don't trust my conviction that I evolved.
Perhaps our cognitive faculties are trustworthy, but since, on naturalism, cognitive faculties are developed for their survival value rather than their capacity for producing true beliefs, it is unlikely, on naturalism, that th false belief) is proof that either your God did not create us, or your argument is flawed.
That's beyond my pay grade, I'm afraid. I'd refer you to Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 230-31. But the exact probability is not important. Agnosticism regarding origins, as Hume showed, can yield only uncertainty. At best one can say that the probability of our inheriting reliable cognitive faculties is inscrutable. The question then is, is it reasonable to accept the deliverances of your cognitive faculties if the probability of their being reliable is inscrutable?
So the fact that our cognitive faculties are quite clearly flawed (the two of us hold conflicting beliefs so at a minimum one of us holds a false belief) is proof that either your God did not create us, or your argument is flawed.
I haven't argued that our being created in God's image would entail perfect knowledge, only that, in such a context, it is certain that our cognitive faculties would be aimed at producing true beliefs.
20 May 11
Originally posted by IshDaGeggThe theistic view holds that God fashioned (by whatever means) human cognitive faculties to be aimed at true belief. Such that there is no need to call into question, rationally speaking, the deliverances of our cognitive faculties, given theism. But that is not to say that we cannot make mistakes in logic, science or perception.
If we say God created us with the purpose of forming true beliefs, but we observe that a lot of people have a lot of false beliefs, what does that say about God's handiwork?
21 May 11
Originally posted by LemonJello...it is very implausible that evolution would furnish us with cognitive apparatus that produces a preponderance of false beliefs that both (1) are on the whole consistent (or "hang together" in a way that is on the whole coherent) and (2) conduce to the right adaptive behavior across the wide range or spectrum of situations that we face.
[b]But it seems that evolution has furnished us with a cognitive apparatus that produces false beliefs.
Sure, in many cases, but not on the whole (as you yourself agree in your subsequent comments). And, at any rate, your comment is not relevant to what I claimed. I never claimed that evolution would furnish us with cognitive apparatus that gener ...[text shortened]... ome to many false beliefs on many matters. So, this is no big whoop against his argument.[/b]
How are you establishing the implausibility here? According to mainstream biology, behavior is governed entirely by biochemistry—conscious belief being little more than a shadow cast by the inner workings of that biochemistry. Of what import is it to our biology whether or not the content of our beliefs are on the whole true or not? Any beliefs would have to be accidental as far as evolution is concerned. Given this, it seems to me that the reliability of our cognitive faculties is inscrutable at best.
21 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's a good analogy, but it breaks down at the 'is' level: a river is something which simply follows the rules. Evolution is not a not a thing, but rather the rules.
A river has no purpose. It does not desire to reach the sea or erode the rock over which it runs. Yet it does have processes and outcomes.
It may be useful at times to treat the river as a single entity and even at times to talk as if it has a purpose, but we should not forget that it is really only a bunch of water molecules following rules (a process).
21 May 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs I understand it, evolution is a process and so qualifies in this sense for being a 'thing'. The 'rules' of evolution are a different entity and describe how this process unfolds.
It's a good analogy, but it breaks down at the 'is' level: a river is something which simply follows the rules. Evolution is not a not a thing, but rather the rules.
21 May 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe biggest reason I have is I don't believe you can get everything from nothing.
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.
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 May 11
1 edit
Naturalism does not mean that evolution is the source of our cognitive apparatus. In fact, there are some notable thinkers, Noam Chomsky, for example, who argue that the mind cannot be the result of natural selection. Evolution requires that each stage genetic variation have some reproductive advantage. Chomsky specifically does not think that the features of our universal grammar could have developed incrementally by natural selection. So the debate about whether naturalism allows for reliably true beliefs is not necessarily about evolution at all.
I don't see the power of this argument at all. Imagine if a psychologist interviews a patient who clearly suffers delusions but is unable to perceive them as delusions. Now the psychologist would have to wonder out of curiosity whether he too could suffer delusions without knowing it. Such a possibility would obviously compromise the certainty to all his beliefs. He might too be deluded but, because the nature of his condition prevents him discovering, he can never rule out delusion. Should he then conclude that mental illness does not exist? I don't see how Plantinga's argument is any different here.
21 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KEvolution requires that each stage genetic variation have some reproductive advantage.
Naturalism does not mean that evolution is the source of our cognitive apparatus. In fact, there are some notable thinkers, Noam Chomsky, for example, who argue that the mind cannot be the result of natural selection. Evolution requires that each stage genetic variation have some reproductive advantage. Chomsky specifically does not think that the features ...[text shortened]... t whether naturalism allows for reliably true beliefs is not necessarily about evolution at all.
I don't entirely agree; just as (if not more) important is that it confers no reproductive disadvantage. If temporarily 'redundant' variation comes about which has a neglible impact on ability to reproduce, then these variations can be reinforced later. In particular, the facility for evaluating what is true and what is not true could come about as a byproduct of some line of evolutionary changes.
21 May 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo although you stated it as if it followed from your argument, in reality it doesn't follow from your argument and you just take the word of Plantinga?
That's beyond my pay grade, I'm afraid. I'd refer you to Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 230-31.
At best one can say that the probability of our inheriting reliable cognitive faculties is inscrutable. The question then is, is it reasonable to accept the deliverances of your cognitive faculties if the probability of their being reliable is inscrutable?
Well then one should not choose to rely on their cognitive faculties based purely on a probability argument based on their origins. Such a methodology seems fundamentally flawed to me anyway.
It is well known that a certain percentage of humans are clinically insane. Can we use that probability argument to conclude that we cannot be sure that we are not clinically insane?
I haven't argued that our being created in God's image would entail perfect knowledge, only that, in such a context, it is certain that our cognitive faculties would be aimed at producing true beliefs.
And how does that even suggest that our cognitive faculties would be any better at actually producing true beliefs than cognitive faculties that were not aimed at producing true beliefs? Maybe it is pure chance that evolution has led to cognitive faculties that are capable of producing true beliefs, but that in no way suggests that they are any less capable of doing so than cognitive faculties that are aimed at producing true beliefs.
And lastly, I totally fail to see how any of this leads to the OPs claim that a naturalist must presuppose God.