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.
I'm not sure if anyone here is familiar with Alvin Plantinga, but he has an ingenious argument against naturalism. If the argument is sound, contemporary scientific atheism is in trouble. If you're interested, read on.
Here's my own quick statement of the argument (I'm not doing it full justice):
"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.).
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?
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.
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). 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.
So it would seem that, given Naturalism and Evolution, the likelihood of our cognitive faculties being reliable is low (or inscrutable). 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).
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.
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.
I kinda agree.
The problem I have with theism is that they generally aren't as flexible as atheism.
That's ridiculous. The reliability of your cognitive faculties is absolutely useful to survival.
You are right that some beliefs don't have to be accurate to be beneficial, but that doesn't mean accurate beliefs are useless. In fact an accurate belief is far more useful than an inaccurate one, in most cases, especially if the belief is related to decisions the believer is making. Accurate beliefs about the world are essential in determining consequences of one's actions, while inaccurate beliefs could easily lead one to make terrible decisions.
A guy running from a tiger thinking he's playing a game might stop and try to hug the tiger when the 'game' is 'over', but believing that a tiger wants to eat the guy would prompt him to keep running until he finds safety.
A guy running from a tiger thinking he's playing a game might stop and try to hug the tiger when the 'game' is 'over', but believing that a tiger wants to eat the guy would prompt him to keep running until he finds safety.
True, but a modern problem is that nowadays we have so much (conflicting) knowledge that it is just regarded as an opinion which is counterproductive.
You are raising a long standing problem of epistemology and in the end you are begging the question. Reading Heidegger and his rendering of the problem relative to Decartes may prove insightful.
Creationists like to toss the name "Alvin Plantinga" into arguments — he's a well-regarded philosopher/theologian who favors Intelligent Design creationism, or more accurately, Christian creationism. I've read some of his work, but not much; it's very bizarre stuff, and every time I get going on one of his papers I hit some ludicrous, literally stupid claim that makes me wonder why I'm wasting time with this pretentious clown, and I give up, throw the paper in the trash, and go read something from Science or Nature to cleanse my palate. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...s_philosop.php
I'll have to read some of his stuff before I can comment, but it's late, and I'm tired...Tomorrow.
The above posts answer pretty well the challenge you throw out.
The question of knowledge is one often thrown out.
How can we be sure there isn't something more?
How can we be sure of what we know?
The scientific method is the best we have for answering questions. It is constantly reappraising so is not dogmatic. It has to meet the rigours of repeatability, publication and peer - review so the scientist has to 'show their work' rather than just make claims and expect them to be taken on faith.
It does not claim to know everything. However, what it does not know remains somewhat anecdotal. Someone claiming that meditation makes him feel better, Faith in Allah improved his batting average or going to church helped him to get a job all are open to question. We really cannot take such claims seriously because the implications conflict at the very least.
We can't simply dismiss them but we have regard them as unproven. And what is unproven is not yet worthy of belief. That may offend those who begin with the belief and then look round for evidence to support it, but it is the only logical way of thought.
Believing in something without good evidence is not logical. Not believing in something which has no good evidence for it is logical.
There is no good evidence for any god. Not believing in any god is therefore logical.
You are raising a long standing problem of epistemology and in the end you are begging the question. Reading Heidegger and his rendering of the problem relative to Decartes may prove insightful.
Astute observation, connecting this with Descartes. I'm not sure I see how this argument begs the question, however. And what do you have in mind with Heidegger?
Creationists like to toss the name "Alvin Plantinga" into arguments — he's a well-regarded philosopher/theologian who favors Intelligent Design creationism, or more accurately, Christian creationism. I've read some of his work, but not much; it's very bizarre stuff, and every time I get going on one of his papers I hit some ludicrous, literally stupid claim that makes me wonder why I'm wasting time with this pretentious clown, and I give up, throw the paper in the trash, and go read something from Science or Nature to cleanse my palate. Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name : Pharyngula
I'll have to read some of his stuff before I can comment, but it's late, and I'm tired...Tomorrow.
Great. I look forward to your comments. And if I have the time (my own time is pretty limited) I'll see if I can offer some thoughts.
I glanced at the link you provided. I ask: please don't trust that guy too much with his assessment of Plantinga's argument. Plantinga, whether he is right or wrong, is one of the more brilliant philosophers of the 20th century (and into the 21st century). He shouldn't be taken lightly, since what might at first appear to look foolish, is usually very tightly argued. (For a point of contrast, I would never dream of taking, say, Hume lightly).
The excuse for theism getting a free pass is rather ridiculous imo.
"My cognitive faculties are reliable because a god(s) made them"
Well then what if god(s) didn't make them reliable?
It's the same issue but the theist is making a boatload of assumptions about the nature of reality. Blind faith will never be the more rational stance.
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.
I kinda agree.
