Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with the whole science vs western religion argument is that its one sided. Science can keep going with or without religion. In Science there is no place for religion since we have yet to find a scientific measurement for miracles or faith. Its not Science vs religion so much as science vs the unknown. Science is the search for knowledge, not the quest to kill god.
Try: by accepting findings that disprove absurdities like young-earth-creationism and Noah's ark.
Noah's Ark is sitting atop of Mt.Ararat in Turkey as we speak covered in snow. Turkey has long since banned any exploration to the top of that mountain. You can't even fly over it. You will get shot down by Turkish forces. I tell you no lie. Google it.
Noah's Ark is sitting atop of Mt.Ararat in Turkey as we speak covered in snow. Turkey has long since banned any exploration to the top of that mountain. You can't even fly over it. You will get shot down by Turkish forces. I tell you no lie. Google it.
Wrong. If I had the money and the desire to spend it on such a boring trek, I could book an expedition up Ararat pretty easily.
I've enjoyed this thread, because the OP was a lot more thoughtful than the usual "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" argument. I'm strictly an amateur philosopher, in that I've read a variety of philosophical writings, and I enjoy a good discussion, but I'm no expert. So I have some questions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
"Naturalism" is the view that only natural objects exist (or kinds or properties). Basically, this is the view that all that exists is the natural world (nothing supernatural, no gods, no soul, etc.).
This seems to me to be a matter of semantics. What is the difference between the natural and supernatural? Are there generally accepted philosophical definitions? The way I use the terms is that anything that existis is, by definition, natural. Objects that fall within the realm of the supernatural either 1) don't exist or 2) do exist, but we haven't yet figured out how to measure their properties or prove their existence. In other words, objects in the second category are natural. So I'm open to the possibility of souls, which, if they exist, likely will be explained by quantum physics. As for gods, well, again it's a matter of definition. Might there be higher-dimensional beings? Might our individual consciousnesses be linked somehow in a higher dimension at a higher level of organization? Quantum physics, as I understand it, allows for the possibility. Do you want to call the highest level of hypothetical organization "God"? That's fine with me.
Quote:
The question: granting Naturalism and Evolution, how likely is it that our cognitive faculties produce reliable beliefs? That is, how likely is it that our "belief -producing mechanisms" will, more often than not, produce beliefs that are true?
The question of "how likely" seems important.
Quote:
Here's what's at stake. Evolution and Naturalism together imply that we are the product of blind, unguided, uncaring forces of nature. The name of the game is survival. And this will apply equally to the formation of our cognitive faculties--our cognitive faculties developed and evolved for survival, not truth. And so our belief-forming mechanisms do not necessarily aim at truth, they are not necessarily reliable, since the goal is not essentially truth, but survival.
Okay, but it's important ask how important perceiving truth is for survival. So onward...
Quote:
Our beliefs could of course be true. But the reliability of our cognitive faculties depends upon blind, unguided processes, which select for survival. And it is far from clear that reliable belief-forming mechanisms would ever be selected for (many living things do not have any cognitive capacity for belief formation, and they survive).
Different species evolved to exploit different ecological niches. Many living things do not have any cognitive capacity, period (e.g., plants and viruses), and they survive -- just in different niches. So why is it far from clear that reliable belief-forming mechanisms would never be selected for in homo sapiens?
Quote:
Furthermore, a belief, on the Naturalistic account, is some sort of biochemical event in the brain. But the "content" of a belief (what the belief is "about") and whether it is true or not, are "blind" to evolutionary forces. The bottom line: as long as a belief aids in survival, "evolution" will not care whether the belief is true, or what it is "about." What ultimately matters is how the belief effects behavior. As long as the mechanisms that produce biochemical events (beliefs) in the brain reliably cause survival behavior, it doesn't matter whether the beliefs are true. As long as I run from the tiger, it doesn't matter whether my beliefs about tigers are true or not--the important thing is that I survive. I could just as well believe that by running away from tigers I am playing a happy game-- for the point is survival, not truth.
I buy the basic premise of that, but it omits the testing of ideas and the sharing of knowledge over time. The trend, throughout human history, has been an increase in truth-based beliefs. That would lend weight to the importance of truth-based beliefs from a survival standpoint. If people run from tigers because they think it's a happy game, eventually someone is going to compare it with other happy games, such as running from and being chased by a friendly dog. Chasing the dog is also part of the happy game -- so why not chase the tiger? Oops -- the person just got eaten. Maybe the premise that it's a happy game is incorrect. Maybe tigers chase people because they want to eat us.
Quote:
So it would seem that, given Naturalism and Evolution, the likelihood of our cognitive faculties being reliable is low (or inscrutable).
I don't see the case for the reliability being low. We might not be able to quantify it, but it seems likelier that it's high.
Quote:
And if this is the case, then a person who believes both Naturalism and Evolution has a reason to doubt his own beliefs--he has reason to doubt whether his cognitive faculties are trustworthy, for, at best, it is unlikely they are reliable. However, if he has a reason to doubt whether his cognitive faculties reliably produce true beliefs, then he has a reason to doubt all his beliefs, including the belief in Naturalism. Naturalism, then, (when taken in conjunction with the belief in evolution) is "self-defeating," since one has no way of defeating this defeater--that is, one who believes Naturalism has no way of overcoming this doubt about the reliability of his cognitive faculties, for any further conviction, any further belief, is itself subject to the same doubt. In short, it is irrational to believe both Naturalism and evolution, since the conjunction of these two beliefs calls into question the foundation of rationality itself (the reliability of your cognitive faculties).
This strikes me as one of those logical constructs that leads to a paradox but flies in the face of common sense, like the one about how you can never get from point A to point B if you approach the task by halving the distance, and then halving the remaining distance, and so on infinitely. I can't resolve the apparent paradox, but I still manage to get from point A to point B on a regular basis.
Quote:
However, the same is not true for a person who believes both evolution and theism. Evolution and theism are not inconsistent. And the theist does not believe that blind, uncaring forces are ultimately behind the process of evolution. Consequently, she will not believe that her cognitive faculties are the result of blind forces, but instead they are the result of a divinely guided process. And so, the theist may claim her cognitive faculties are reliable, since they are designed by God, who chose to create through the process of evolution. But the Naturalist has no such recourse, and thus, the person who believes both evolution and Naturalism is irrational.
This argument is shaky in that it relies on too many unproveable premises. It presupposes the existence of God, and that God created the universe and the process of evolution, and that God gave us the capacity for only truth-based beliefs.
So, yes, the arguments are sound, but only if you accept all the premises. That's a awful lot of "ifs."
Try: by accepting findings that disprove absurdities like young-earth-creationism and Noah's ark.
I am one Christian that doesn't think the Earth is only 6 or 9 or 10 thousand years old, etc. (I think there could have been evolution, but I think the Lord or Supreme Being or whatever you want to call him controlled it, and Garden of Eden may have been around millions of years before Adam and Eve out of it, even 7 days of creation may not have been sevenliteral days), but Noah's ark, I have no problem with. Faith is something you can't measure in a test tube, and someone talked about how arrogant, etc., Christians, maybe other religions, are with their faith. I am seeing at least as much arrogance from people that claim to be atheist or agnostic and they look down on anyone that thinks their just might after all be a God. A lot of that arrogance I have noticed not so much from true intellectuals as pseudo-intellectual boors. Speaking of faith - it seems like takes more faith to believe in 15 or 16 billion years ago "Big Bang" theory of everything everywhere appearing from absolute nothing or an inch or so superdense cluster of matter than to think someone or something "supernatural" had something to do with it. Blast me all you want to, my mind ain't changing, yours are probably not going to either. And that's the bottom line cause I say so. As I said, blast away, baby!
Just really quick, I think you can imply the opposite about Naturalism and Evolution and say that "what is, IS" and that my extended self can reach true conclusions about the external world, EVEN if those conclusions are solely for survival.
Is survival not true?
I would also argue that something that is deterministic, such as evolution, doesn't make it a byproduct of a God, but rather in and of itself, a self sustaining coping mechanism, by which natural and true objects converse with the world.
As much as I agree (real-world) about truth losing out to survival i.e. If I sit at home philosophizing the truth rather than making tons of money and creating many offspring I can see my kind not lasting too long. However I don't see the connection that either my or my alternate money making self is NOT true. I think they both are.
I can't think of a time where a belief for survival wouldn't be true. IF the end WAS that one survived.
Perhaps quite ironically believing in and fighting for a God has led many to their untimely deaths.
Atheists and Theists can now stand tall and hold hands.
I stopped reading your post after the bit about us being products of "blind, unguided processes." Jesus! has that dude ever even read Darwin? Rr any other Evolutionary Biologist for that matter. The process of evolution is hardly blind! That's what natural selection is all about. Only those traits which have been proved to work and to serve us well and enhance our survival are passed down. Hence the famous term for this process: "Survival of the Fittest." It's not guidless and random, or it would be called "Survival of the Luckiest." Right? This is true with all species, not just humans. Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. So...to asnwer your orignal question, I would say that, hell yeah, I would place a LOT of stock in our thought processes and logic, since they got us to where we are now: typing on computers and driving cars and using cell phones and going to the moon, all after beginning humbly as an amoeba in the primordial ooze. I would say that's quite an accomplishment! Doncha think!
Last edited by DrummerBoy; 01-20-2010 at 10:51 PM..
I've enjoyed this thread, because the OP was a lot more thoughtful than the usual "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" argument. I'm strictly an amateur philosopher, in that I've read a variety of philosophical writings, and I enjoy a good discussion, but I'm no expert. So I have some questions:
This seems to me to be a matter of semantics. What is the difference between the natural and supernatural? Are there generally accepted philosophical definitions? The way I use the terms is that anything that existis is, by definition, natural. Objects that fall within the realm of the supernatural either 1) don't exist or 2) do exist, but we haven't yet figured out how to measure their properties or prove their existence. In other words, objects in the second category are natural. So I'm open to the possibility of souls, which, if they exist, likely will be explained by quantum physics. As for gods, well, again it's a matter of definition. Might there be higher-dimensional beings? Might our individual consciousnesses be linked somehow in a higher dimension at a higher level of organization? Quantum physics, as I understand it, allows for the possibility. Do you want to call the highest level of hypothetical organization "God"? That's fine with me.
Good post. Yes. Supernatural is a term loosely given to anything that seems to happen outside of the material and physical. If ever Ghosts, magic or messages from the dead were proven, tested and repeatably put on the factual map, they would become 'natural' and we'd be thinking about ways to find out how they work. And whether you could make a weapon out of them.
Quote:
The question of "how likely" seems important.
Okay, but it's important ask how important perceiving truth is for survival. So onward...
Different species evolved to exploit different ecological niches. Many living things do not have any cognitive capacity, period (e.g., plants and viruses), and they survive -- just in different niches. So why is it far from clear that reliable belief-forming mechanisms would never be selected for in homo sapiens?
I buy the basic premise of that, but it omits the testing of ideas and the sharing of knowledge over time. The trend, throughout human history, has been an increase in truth-based beliefs. That would lend weight to the importance of truth-based beliefs from a survival standpoint. If people run from tigers because they think it's a happy game, eventually someone is going to compare it with other happy games, such as running from and being chased by a friendly dog. Chasing the dog is also part of the happy game -- so why not chase the tiger? Oops -- the person just got eaten. Maybe the premise that it's a happy game is incorrect. Maybe tigers chase people because they want to eat us.
I don't see the case for the reliability being low. We might not be able to quantify it, but it seems likelier that it's high.
This strikes me as one of those logical constructs that leads to a paradox but flies in the face of common sense, like the one about how you can never get from point A to point B if you approach the task by halving the distance, and then halving the remaining distance, and so on infinitely. I can't resolve the apparent paradox, but I still manage to get from point A to point B on a regular basis.
This argument is shaky in that it relies on too many unproveable premises. It presupposes the existence of God, and that God created the universe and the process of evolution, and that God gave us the capacity for only truth-based beliefs.
So, yes, the arguments are sound, but only if you accept all the premises. That's a awful lot of "ifs."
To sum up, you have it right. While erudite and dressed up in a lot of abstruse terminology, the proposition is flawed because of some very questionable assumptions about what is and the validity as a parameter of what might be more desirable. Big Ifs, as you say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
