A Challenge to Atheism (best, famous, reject, truth)

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Plantinga confuses truth that naturalists get from their consistent observation of the natural world, with all of its inherent limitations, with the truth that his audience think exists solely because they have a direct line to the omnipotent creator of the universe. And then he objects that because the truth that naturalists have isn't the absolute truth that believers assume that the problem is with naturalism. But those are two totally separate ideas of truth, and he does a disservice by confusing them with each other.
In other words, he's damning naturalism because it doesn't produce the kind of absolute truth from on high a theist wishes exists.

Originally Posted by The Matrix

You lost me here.

It's essentially what i was saying about equivocation: the belief/truth derived from empirical evidence is on a different basis from belief/truth based solely on beliefs from our brain without any validation.

The former is likely to be right because of the validation of science and the other is not because - as you pointed out - there are a lot more possibilities of being wrong.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The argument has nothing to do with what is ultimate. It has to do with the probability that God selection without intervention from God could produce a brain which is capable of gaining accurate beliefs about the world. Researching God selection via ordinary God causes is squarely in the camp of science.

Since when is anything having to do with mythological beings part of science? What sort of testable predictions does "God selection" make? What sort of empirical observations would let us know if the idea were false? You'll have to answer those before what you wrote makes any sense.

The question Plantinga asked is what is the chance that naturalism plus evolution gives reliable beliefs. Studying natural processes via the methods of naturalism is pretty much the definition of science, so obviously that's the correct tool to answer this question. If you want to ask another totally unrelated questions about some sort of pantheistic god idea, perhaps you should start your own thread.

WITHOUT the intelligence that provides the very structure you "Take for granted" as "natural" . . . there would be NO "processes" at all . . . just random encounters of vibratory energy events.

You'll have to do better than simply assert things like this if you want anyone else to care. A coherent description of this alleged intelligence and the evidence in its favor would be a good start.

[Georgiafrog]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

But the question I'm asking here is, how do we know we can't? What is the basis for Plantinga assuming that we can't trust our cognitive faculties?

I know that we can't - that was agreed from the beginning. But the reason we know is that we can check the results empirically. If we can't trust that then we cannot know one way or the other and Plantinga is making as assumption that seems to me unjustified - unless one appeals to the evidence, which upsets Plantinga's 'belief' element.



Yes, it is. But it's a good question. Atheists eventually have to consider why they trust what science has found out and why they don't trust unsupported theism claims.

Since empirically - verified evidence is not admitted to this proposition, we have to take on board the point that our cognitive faculties may not be reliable. If I may say so, it is tempting for you to supply the supposed response on my behalf "I don't have to even try to come up with an argument".

I do. Atheists do have to come up with arguments to these questions. My response is to refer to what I already said about empirical verification; it does not matter whether or not our faculties can be trusted. The hardest possible verification is there. However, as you said, Plantinga is not talking about what science can show to be reliable, it is about our naturalistically - evolved faculties (absent any evidence one way ot the other) So I say 'we don't know'. We don't know whether our faculties are reliable or not. So why is Plantinga assuming for the sake of the proposition that they are not?

The answer is actually based on the theory of evolution but we'll let that pass. He assumes that natural selection will not select cognitive faculties that find 'truth'. It will select those that make for survival.

To which I say, why should those be exclusive? Isn't it reasonable to suppose that cognitive faculties which find truth rather than falsity and which are reliable rather than faulty would increase the chances of survival? Isn't it more logical to suppose that evolution would prefer our faculties which are reliable and that our beliefs should be true?

If I may be forgiven for doing what you did, the natural reaction is to say "Nonsense! We know that we make mistakes. We know our beliefs are fallible and our perceptions are not always reliable."

So we do, but it is evidence tells us that, not the logic of Plantinga's parameters. Why does Plantinga assume so much as the basis of his proposition? If he is going to appeal to evidence, then I shall also appeal to evidence and say that the proposition fails because naturalism/evolution is not based on unreliable beliefs but on reliable, evidentially supported, conclusions.



No. Under Plantinga's somewhat artificial terms, you don't know one way or the other. There is no reason to be able to say that they are or are not reliable. You say 'doubt', but what happens is that doubt becomes an opting for 'they are not reliable' as a given. I argue that (taking the evolution theory) one can reasonably argue that evolution would opt for 'reliable'.



So that is why I say the argument is not successful either because it assumes that unreliable is the only option when there is a good case for reliable or, if one appeals to our knowledge that our cognitive faculties are unreliable, our knowledge defeats the defeater. Naturalism/evolution is based on reliable knowledge, not upon those unreliable beliefs.



So, I do not just deny that my brain is in a vat and the reason to doubt my cognitive faculties is

(1) the reason (knowledge) why I can rely on naturalism/evolution, and

(2) doubt about my cognitive faculties is (setting aside any 'knowledge' about it), is also a reason to doubt that there is any unreliablility about them.

Absent knowledge, we do not know one way or the other and the proposition fails because of Plantinga's unjustified a priori assumption that he does know.



Of course there is a good point here. But it is appealing to the evidence to support the (valid) contention that our perception of the world is imperfect. It is the evidence that has shown us that and it is the evidence that is to be relied upon, not our unreliable cognitive faculties.

None of that has any relevance to the proposition which does not want to admit the matter of evidence. I won't labour the point, but I'd like you to consider whether, either we can reasonably say that the naturalistic theory of evolution is in accordance with the evidence (and therefore rational) OR, if evidence is not admitted to the proposition, whether Plantinga is reasonable is assuming that 'doubt' about our cognitive faculties entitles him to assume (as a given) that they are not reliable, especially, since (absent evidence) it would be reasonable to argue that evolution would favour reliability.

P.s.

I'll just say that this is quite an interesting excercise. I accept that I'm in an unfamiliar area and I'm trying to get to grips with the arguments. I do think I understand the essentials. I may well be arguing from the point of a laybod rather than someone who knows and uses the rules of philosophy. That might actually be as advantage. I do know a bit about logical method and that is a tool of philosophy.

I can be somewhat easy going about the results as I am quite content that naturalism and evolution are based on sound evidence, if there is any validity in trusting it (and we rely on it every day) so Plantinga's proposition is, to me, a pretty mental excercise but not really meaningful. However, it is a worry that it is likely to provide theism with some hefty ammunition mainly because it is likely to bewilder anyone trying to counter it.

I do think that it is a god -argument at bottom, and is based on a theist wordview. That's ok, except that it begins to look to me like it isn't a proposition out of nowhere - it is a proposition intended to be a theist apologetic. I say this not as an ad hom. But so you know where I am coming from.

I'll finally say that I'm loving a reasonable discussion with mutual repect and a desire to get to the validity or not of the Proposition. I am aware of Plantinga's reputation, but I also believe that no -one is above question from the ordinary bod in the street.

Newton was a great scientist, but he wasted time on astrology, alchemy and Daniel. Einsten was a fine little thinker, but he epically failed at Quantum because he believed that god did not play dice. Pascal had ten times the brains I have, but his 'wager' is flawed in many ways. I think that Plantinga is wrong, and I think that it is based on theist - think is why.

I think that the empirical evidence that we need to consider rests much more heavily on evolution, not naturalism/evolution. If the process of evolution is left self standing, as I believe it should be, then we have two posited explanations for it; Theistic, and Naturalistic. Of late, Naturalists have used evolution as evidence for naturalism.

As to the question of evolution seeking truth naturally, I'll give that trial and error would have something to do with it. I believe that it is a bad idea to stick my head into a lion's mouth. But most of these beliefs can be summed up to experience. It is the more abstract beliefs of thought and social behavior that I would question naturalism's survivability processes to reach.

Plantinga does want to untie the naturalism/evolution bonds, and is attempting to do so by offering a more reliable cognitive faculty. He does not claim that our cognitive faculties should not be trusted, but that they should be trusted if we allow for a guided evolution process.

I would readily admit that theism has it's problems. But when wieghing the two possibilities against each other, Naturalism seems to have bigger problems. Gone are the days of Adam and Eve in philosophical debate, thanks to our reliable cognitive faculties. We have learned much about the planet and the solar system since then, and those who would posit biblical creationism have become a laughingstock.

As it is, the possibility of some supreme being putting all of this into motion still exists, and in some cases, such as Plantinga's attempt, better fits the bill. What if all of the evidence we can gather is the result of a supernatural being who exists outside of the physical universe making it happen? How could one gather evidence for such a being empirically? No, you have to lean on philosophy in such a case. Closing the doors on what is possible is an action that some atheists are all to willing to do.

Perhaps one day science will be able to determine exactly what happened during the "big bang". Perhaps we will also be able to determine where it came from. Until then, one must have a certain degree of faith in science that it will. To be positive that this is the case takes also a certain degree of atheistic/naturalistic fundamentalism. Explanations of metaphysical, moral, and evolutionary concerns still require a sort of "science of the gaps" in the same way that the "God of the gaps" fills them all.

To be convinced that the universe is a random occurance and that life and intelligence rose from the muck, or to claim that I personally know the God who spun us into creation and he talks to me, takes more faith than I am willing to commit before all of the "evidence" is in.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

A very good summary of the actual argument.

And researching natural selection through natural causes is, by definition, within the realm of scientific enquiry. But you also know that Plantinga's argument strikes deeper than this.

Only in the sense that "we can never be 100% sure of anything without any possible shred of doubt". That seems profound to him - I doubt it is much of a revelation to people actually doing science. Anyone who has taken an actual science class should be well aware of things like measurement error and accuracy vs. precision in results.

Again, the philosophy describing naturalism is eventually catching up to figuring out what science actually is and does.

I'm amazed at all these things! It's astonishing. And any metaphysical naturalist who says differently is only selling their view. Having physical, causal explanations for how these arise does not in the least reduce the amazement.

Yeah, it's cool and amazing. That says nothing about how likely it is.

Intelligence. Mental states. The "soul." Thoughts. Feelings. "Qualia." Consciousness. The will. The mind. These phenomena are among the most mysterious things in the universe. It's one of the biggest mysteries.

No more mysterious than many other things in nature - missing mass in the universe, the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and relativity, the origin of quasars, the significance of homochirality, and so on. We're just (understandably) emotionally connected to having minds - plus it's something everyone is aware of so you don't have to do any actual research to come up with questions about it. Doing research to actually ask reasonable questions instead of assuming there's some sort of magic there is another issue, though.

And it is absolutely legitimate to ask how it is even possible for "mind" to arise from what is absolutely unintelligible. Of course, Plantinga does not specifically raise the question, but it is implicit. And it haunts the metaphysical naturalistic framework.

... in the opinion of a Christian apologist and evangelist.

Or do you think there are no problems for naturalism? Do you think naturalism is air-tight, having no weaknesses, providing an impenetrable defense against all other competing metaphysical views? If there is any weakness at all on the naturalistic account, it is here, in explaining the mind (and how mind relates to the world, causality, knowledge, meaning, truth, etc. etc. etc. etc.).

Hardy. The problem of induction is a far bigger issue. Figuring out how the human brain works, and how it evolved, are much simpler questions that might actually have an answer based on what we can observe. Yeah, we don't know everything right now. But not knowing everything is only a problem if you assume that we should have instant access to some infinite storehouse of knowledge - this is not an assumption many naturalists make.

I can see how it would be disconcerting to people who believe they have a direct line of communication to an omnipotent being. Again, that's Plantinga's mistake (or strategy) of looking at naturalism and being amazed and shocked that it's not the same as his (and his audience's) particular form of religious belief.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

I wouldn't characterize science as having a "higher standard" than philosophy.

Maybe. In this case, however, the work would not be up to the standards of any sort of research publication dealing with evolution or neurology.

What's the problem, as long as the estimates are fair and seem to be in the general ballpark?

How can you verify that they're in the general ballpark?

I certainly can't see how someone could say there is a high probability of this happening. Would you?

I'm perfectly happy to say I don't know. It's an open question that may be filled in by further research. I may not live to see a reasonable answer or maybe we'll never know. That doesn't mean I'm just going to make up some vague answer so I can pretend to know something.

There's simply no plausible explanation.

Beliefs are formed through observation of how things work. Observation is reliable enough not to get us killed. Beliefs tested against those fairly reliable observations are confirmed. What's so implausible about that? It was mentioned back in the first few pages by several different people, so it's not like this is some hidden secret that naturalists pass from person to person.

Sure, this doesn't lead to 100% perfectly accurate beliefs. In fact, it tells us beliefs which can't be tested (such as beliefs in gods) aren't likely to be true. But it does match what we see - beliefs become more accurate the more they are tested against independent observations.

In any case, I'm not sure why you led with a generalization/stereotype, "christians love to claims this...". What's up KC?? I thought we were beyond that.

It's a popular theme in much of the arguments for god. Intelligent design advocates such as Plantinga use it all the time - vague designer concept when necessary turns to the Protestant Christian God when actual details are provided. Aquinas made the same mistakes. It's hardly uncommon - prove something which you call god (even if it's just an uncaused cause) and then with a bit of handwaving pretend you've proven that Jesus died for all of our sins. Sure, some of the more academic apologists might be cautious about making this jump, but the intent is pretty obvious.

I think this conflates justification with truth. I would instead say that we are justified in believing in things that are supported by consistent observation, etc. Would you agree with my suggestion?

This assumes that there is Truth(tm) somehow out there beyond beliefs justified by evidence. Which is my point - Plantinga throws in so much Christian baggage when evaluating what he thinks naturalists should believe that his critique can't be trusted.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Georgiafrog

Plantinga does want to untie the naturalism/evolution bonds, and is attempting to do so by offering a more reliable cognitive faculty. He does not claim that our cognitive faculties should not be trusted, but that they should be trusted if we allow for a guided evolution process.

I'd think "evolution is guided by a being which is impossible in principle to say anything about, either motives or actions" is a pretty big hurdle for supernaturalists to overcome. That's what you get when you try to explain anything using a being which is impossible to observe or predict. Any problems naturalism have in this area pale in comparison.

And as much as I disapprove of Plantinga's argument, I'm not sure he'd characterize it as a god of the gaps approach.

[AREQUIPA]

Thank you. Nice post. You raise a lot of worthwhile points. Not new, as it happens, but well worth running over. And I'm not saying you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Georgiafrog

I think that the empirical evidence that we need to consider rests much more heavily on evolution, not naturalism/evolution. If the process of evolution is left self standing, as I believe it should be, then we have two posited explanations for it; Theistic, and Naturalistic. Of late, Naturalists have used evolution as evidence for naturalism.

Yes. First I'd say that - at least the way I (as atheist) approach it, science draws conclusions from the evidence and comes up with evolution as an explanation for how life developed.

There might be a god doing it (theistic evolution) or not. I think that there is not a lot of evidence for god - input so the logic is that I will be inclined not to take it as a serious possibility as yet. And nowhere near taking it as fact.

That (and other closing of gaps for god) does tend to underpin the naturalistic view. It still leaves room for a god, but it is a faith - view and so long as theists recognise that, they are welcome to believe it.

What evolution does do, is to make any of the creation - stories look doubtful. I repeat, it doesn't disprove God, it only undermines a literal reading of Genesis.

As to the question of evolution seeking truth naturally, I'll give that trial and error would have something to do with it. I believe that it is a bad idea to stick my head into a lion's mouth. But most of these beliefs can be summed up to experience. It is the more abstract beliefs of thought and social behavior that I would question naturalism's survivability processes to reach.

I agree and you may put your head where you like with me. So long as the discussion is reasonable and rational, you can discuss what you like.

Yes. I agree that the trial and error and evidence deal with practical matters. The abstracts are really what science can't get a grip on. I don't think that it shouldn't be allowed to try, mind, but I concede that it's an area that is pretty murky.

I do think that (taking evolution as a start and considering that we are primates) study of that kind may explain a lot of where our social behaviour and morality comes from. Getting beyond that into where genius comes from, what art and music is based on (if anything) and feelings about gods, mysticism, meditation ecstacy gets rarified and science is floundering a bit.

Plantinga does want to untie the naturalism/evolution bonds, and is attempting to do so by offering a more reliable cognitive faculty. He does not claim that our cognitive faculties should not be trusted, but that they should be trusted if we allow for a guided evolution process.

Yes, he does suggest (further along) that God - input would give the reliable beliefs that naturalistic evolution can't. We know the reason why human beliefs are not reliable is because without evidence it has nothing much to go on. It's just guessing.

However, as I said at the beginning, the evidence shows that god - beliefs are all over the place. The mystic, fringe - science, religious and cult stuff is full of contrary beliefs. They can't even agree what God wants within religions let alone outside. It is evident that beliefs are totally unreliable. Not just we don't know whether they are true, but we can see clearly that they are not. Thus only science - experience can tell us what works but not always why - gives anything like a reliable method of ascertaining truth.

The knock -on from Plantinga is that, if so, the god input that ought to be there, isn't. No input, no god. Or at least, not one that gives us reliable information. One pushes out of the mind the idea of a Screwtape sowing religious discord amongst humans. Humans are quite capable of talking rubbish without goblinate assistance.

I would readily admit that theism has it's problems. But when wieghing the two possibilities against each other, Naturalism seems to have bigger problems.

It does? Care to elaborate? All I can think of is First cause and zones of comfort.

Gone are the days of Adam and Eve in philosophical debate, thanks to our reliable cognitive faculties. We have learned much about the planet and the solar system since then, and those who would posit biblical creationism have become a laughingstock.

I think they do talk a load of rubbish but I welcome the questioning of the present naturalist theories. If something turns out to need reassessment , reassessed it should be. It may end up as something far different from what we have now - that's what science does. The present day cosmology is far beyond Brahe but builds on it - and Ptolemy, too, for that matter. Everything that turns up largely endorses evolution. The objections raised are just questions, not refutations.

However, as you discuss below, that does not disprove a god.

As it is, the possibility of some supreme being putting all of this into motion still exists, and in some cases, such as Plantinga's attempt, better fits the bill. What if all of the evidence we can gather is the result of a supernatural being who exists outside of the physical universe making it happen? How could one gather evidence for such a being empirically? No, you have to lean on philosophy in such a case. Closing the doors on what is possible is an action that some atheists are all to willing to do.

Yes, there is always the possibility of a god behind it all. There are problems with that. Which god? Is it interested in us? Where did it come from? As I have said to one or two god - postulators, if it is so hard to imagine atoms (mainly made of nothing, with forces about them) why is it easy to imagine a fullblown intelligence out of no -where? Talking about 'always existed' explains nothing.

However, it just leaves us with no real evidence one way or another. That, of course, is logically all that is needed for atheism, however, the more evidence there is for naturalist explanations, the less gaps there are for (less reason to suppose) a god.

But Plantinga's proposition, postulating that a god would give us reliable beliefs, underpins the discovery that we don't have reliable beliefs. Not about anything. Not without the check of science. That implies no god input and no no god - input implies no god.

That's why I said that Plantinga is a humdinger. It is the best evidence against a personal intervening god that I have seen. And by a top philosopher too. I say again, this could take over from Ray Comfort's banana.

I repeat that this doesn't disprove a god, but it does tend to relegate it to Deistgod rather that inputgod. Much less Biblegod.

Perhaps one day science will be able to determine exactly what happened during the "big bang". Perhaps we will also be able to determine where it came from. Until then, one must have a certain degree of faith in science that it will. To be positive that this is the case takes also a certain degree of atheistic/naturalistic fundamentalism. Explanations of metaphysical, moral, and evolutionary concerns still require a sort of "science of the gaps" in the same way that the "God of the gaps" fills them all.

Perhaps. I'm not holding my breath. I am far from convinced by the Big Bang myself. All I know is that there is evidence that our bit of the Cosmos - our universe - is expanding. That suggests that it all came from one place. There are claims of an electronic 'bang' echo. I do not have Faith in that. However, for a 'god' there is even less evidence. I tend to be an interested agnostic about the origins of the universe.

Yes, perhaps the fundamentalist athesist (I know what you mean, though atheism has nothing to be fundamental about) can wave the Big Bang about. They are driven to it by 'who made everything, then?' questions.

To be convinced that the universe is a random occurance and that life and intelligence rose from the muck, or to claim that I personally know the God who spun us into creation and he talks to me, takes more faith than I am willing to commit before all of the "evidence" is in.

I understand your point of view. I also know what you mean by 'random occurrence'. It happened for reasons.The reasons of the laws of matter. But you mean without anyone planning it. That life and intelligence arose from the muck, as you put it, is indicated by the evidence. Well - the Bible says no different. Muck is what we were made of and whether it was God made mud into man or the natural processes of evolution, muck or mud is what it was. I rather think of it as star matter.

Yep, according to evilution, every atom we contain was once part of a star. It's all a question of how you look at it, and frankly I am impressed by facts rather than electioneering, anyway. I try to use my faculties to the best of my abilities rather than worry that my distant ancestors might have been grubbing through a Dimetrodon - turd for worms.

Yes, I know that a case for a god spinning us all into existence is an attractive theory. I am not going to get into a faith debate, but which god? And what about it anyway?

That's when we get stage 2. It is a god that speaks to us. I'll refer to Plantinga again. What we get told isn't reliable, unless one postulates that only the god that talks to a certain group of people who all have regular meetings to ensure that what god tells them is the same thing (anyone who doesn't toe the line is kicked out) is the right one and all the others are deluded by Screwtape.

I talk to my god, too. I have done for years. I just know that it's me. I don't want to rubbish your beliefs and this isn't the thread for it. There is an ongoing debate about every aspect of god - belief and the evidence.

I hope at least that I have explained a few things regarding the points you made and I'd be willing to kick them about more. But I reckon. I've gone on long enough.

[The Matrix]

Good posts everyone! I might have to vanish for a little while (busy), and I'm under the gun right now, so I can't read anything carefully. But just some very quick comments about probability. Everyone feel free to jump in.

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

On another (by now hopefully familiar) note, Plantinga's use of the phrase "low probability" is subjective. He equivocates "low" with "inscrutable". He should know that the probability is simply unknown, and using the term "low" is dishonest. I've said this many times, and I'm not the only one on this thread who has.

So let's be honest:
Premise 1a: If naturalism is true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is simply inscrutable.

Is an inscrutable probability going to have any weight in whether one believes it or not? How could it even matter? How can it be a defeater since it has no real value for the probability of the belief being true?

Correct me if you think I'm misunderstanding Plantinga. As you know, I've bee taking Plantinga's argument to have something of a joint conclusion: reliable cognitive faculties are low or they are inscrutable. If you're convinced that the probability is low, as he argues it is, then you have a flat-out reason to reject naturalism in favor of some other view. But then he says (paraphrase), "I can totally see how someone would think we can't assign numbers like this, and it's totally reasonable to conclude that the probability is inscrutable." But if you think the probability is inscrutable, then you also have a defeater (as we already discussed). Now, I've been taking the point to be this: even if you think it's inscrutable, you're not in a position to think the probability is high or moderately high. You can only hold it is "low or inscrutable." So "inscrutable" in this context is not meant to imply being completely open to the whole range of probability. His argument that the probability is low, while it is based on estimates, seems meant to demonstrate that we can't estimate the probability as even moderately high. So we're left with "either low or inscrutable." So, in other words, to take "inscrutable" to be open to the whole range of probability we might expect to be able to make a decent case for both the low probability and the high probability of having reliable cognitive faculties. That way, we would be faced with two plausible explanations, that stand contrary to each other. But we can't do that. We have no basis for making any claims that the probability is even moderately high. So all we have is "low or inscrutable."

But now I'm wondering if Plantinga's argument will work just fine if you take "inscrutable" as being open to any probability. I have to think about it some more (and I don't have time to do it now!). any thoughts?


EDIT: I think I remember what Plantinga wrote. So I may have been a little off with what I said above. I seem to remember he said naturalism leads to skepticism. And I believe he said something like this (paraphrase): "you can't say the probability is high, but you're not ready to say it is low either. So you think it's inscrutable." This would mean (if you think its inscrutable) that you have no grounds to believe your faculties are reliable. Naturalism raises the doubt, and you then (quite reasonably) don't accept the low probability estimate, but instead you think the probability is inscrutable. Yet you aren't in a position to say the probability is high, either. So naturalism leaves you without grounds for believing that you have reliable cognitive faculties. Something along those lines...

[AREQUIPA]

See you. Yes. 'Inscrutable' seems to mean that we have no way of assessing the probability. Plantinga then says that only means that we have the defeater which means that we have no reliable way of assessing the probability.

I'll just say that, if we say 'low', why must we assume that it's low?

If we say we don't know, (inscrutable) that just means that we don't know, low or high. We still have the doubt; the defeater.

I'll have a think about this but I'd still say that 'don't know' is no basis of assuming unreliability. Unless one introduces evidence about how unreliable our faculties are or refers to evolution theory (which can work in favour of quite high reliability), if we don't know' (inscrutible).

I have to think whether doubt is indeed, weighted towards unreliability. It does imply a worried frown but that may be just the choice of word.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Ah the irony. Accusing one of asserting knowledge of falsehood when it cannot be known and then doing the same thing within the same paragraph. Substantiate means to establish with evidence, so unsubstantiatable would be unprovable, not false.

You ignored the second half of the assertion that references the self-defeating nature of the premises. They are BOTH unsubstantiatable and self-defeating logically.

In the case of Plantinga's argument, the 'probability' of naturalism+evolution producing reliable belief-forming mechanisms is "low or inscrutable" they say, but this is a milder version of the equivocation you have given us. The probability is inscrutable so therefore we don't know if it's low. We can't compare any belief with absolute objective reality so there is no way to verify our beliefs. As it goes we don't even know for sure that we aren't brains in vats.

I am willing to support Plantinga's views up to the point they diverge from mine (which assert a zero probability . . . not unkown). The misuse and misunderstandiong about probability is ubiquitous. It has NO impact on the underlying existence it is used to reference . . . ONLY on our predictive ability concerning that existence. Probability is an entirely artificial mathematical construct having nothing to do with reality itself. It is a mental construct allowing us to quantify our predictions from existing knowledge. If existing knowledge is non-existent . . . our probability of predicting is ZERO.

Originally Posted by Evolutionary argument against naturalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument regarding a perceived tension between biological evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism --- the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes...


Isn't this part of your philosophy Mystic?
"If both evolution and naturalism are true..."
"...Then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low."
It is then assumed that this means the probability of a naturalist belief to be true is low (of course "low" really means "inscrutable", the probabilities are just guesses). And since the naturalist's belief discredits his belief-forming mechanisms, it discredits itself.

I think there is something self-defeating about this argument. If both evolution and naturalism were true, then naturalist beliefs would be correct.

Wrong. Evolution adds nothing to your tautology. IF pink unicorns were true then supernaturalism would be correct . . . tautological.There is nothing supernatural, period.

So even though it may follow (it's debatable whether it does of course) that the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low (leading to the hidden conclusion that the belief is unlikely to be true), it also follows that the belief is correct.

So, "If both evolution and naturalism are true..."
"...Then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low."
But a belief in evolution and naturalism would be correct despite the "probabilities" "against" the belief.

Same tautology.

Now we must ask, "If evolution and/or naturalism is false...?"

They are separate issues. Evolution is true . . . naturalism is false and self-defeating.