Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Alvin Plantinga, Templeton Prize 2017
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 апр 2017
- The 2017 Templeton Prize Laureate, philosopher Alvin Plantinga, speaks on the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, concerning why evolution and naturalism contradict. From Closer To Truth, the PBS/public television series and web archive on Cosmos, Consciousness and Meaning/God. Recorded on May 1, 2007. www.closertotruth.com
And "complete skepticism" is also self-contradictory at a basic level : saying "I don't know anything", requires to know for certain that you don't know anything, it is an "absolute truth" statement.
My thoughts too. Even the "I dont know" claim is unreliable.
I think it is self contradictory to say that "complete skepticism" includes "I don't know anything" statement because this statement is one thing being pretended to be sure about which means that we still have one thing to drop on the route to "complete skepticism".
@@Soyozuke We could say then that "absolute skepticism", trying to overcome the ultimate self-contradiction of "nearly complete skepticism", still ends up in (mute) absurdity. Some may like to think this is the "bottom truth" of our reality (consistent nihilism), even though they in fact cannot even develop such a thought and utter such an opinion if their worldview is true.
@@theophan9530 I may sound silly but "complete skepticism" has an official or wide used definition? I know what in general skepticism is. In this video when Plantinga says something like "complete skepticism is to state I don't know anything" sounds for me like a shorthand. I understand this rather as "I am not sure if I can be sure about anything" which doesn't contain such contradiction in my opinion. Also I don't understand what do you mean by saying "still ends up in (mute) absurdity" in case of "absolute skepticism".
@@theophan9530 That’s well said. I think this applies to all monism. Esp physicalist/materialist. Without noticing what theyre doing, they create a cartesian theater for making claims and evaluating truth. Then say it’s defined from brains that are defined from matter but theres always an original truth evaluation that cant be made. Monists cannot make or evaluate claims or say anything imo.
if i see mr Plantinga i know there is hope for us Dutch. ;-) Jesus IS Lord
No. Jesus is a human and messenger of God, the Almighty
@@personalprofile1939 isa is not Jesus, allah is antichrist
Blah blah blah
@@personalprofile1939 and he failed as a prophet? because all his followers thought he was the son of God and died for their sins and since the Almighty God's plan failed he had to send his backup messenger muhammad after 600 years of deceiving his followers this is what you believe? Thats Crazy
It seems to me that Plantinga’s argument boils down to this:
1. There are true beliefs that benefit (or do not harm) survival, and there are false beliefs that benefit (or do not harm) survival.
For example: Bob the lizard sees a coconut fall on his friend Nigel the lizard and Nigel is immediately squashed dead. The next day, Bob sees the same thing happen to his brother Kenneth the lizard. Bob thus forms the true belief that a falling coconut is dangerous to lizards. He also might form the false belief that all coconuts exist solely to kill lizards and that he must therefore never go near a place where there are coconuts on the ground. Both beliefs are beneficial to his survival, even though one is true and one is false.
2. On the naturalistic, evolutionist view, survival is all that matters. So on that view it does not matter that a sentient being believes something that is false, so long as it benefits (or does not harm) its survival.
3. The belief that naturalistic evolution is true does not harm the one who believes it. Therefore, to the naturalistic evolutionist, that belief may either be true or false. Therefore, by his/her own admission, there are no reasonable grounds for him/her to insist that the naturalistic evolutionist view is necessarily true.
4. On that basis, the naturalistic evolutionist view defeats itself.
To put it even more succinctly:
If we are nothing more than evolved physical machines that obey the one rule: “only the fittest survive”, then we can believe something that is false provided it does not harm our survival prospects. The belief that we are nothing more than evolved physical machines is itself a belief does not harm our survival prospects. Therefore, that belief might quite happily be false. Therefore, if you believe that we are nothing more than evolved physical machines, there are no justifiable grounds to insist that that belief is true.
The survival vs truth dichotomy is FALSE.
@@AceofDlamonds who is suggesting such a dichotomy?
@@superman00001
Dr Plantinga and other philosophers.
@@AceofDlamonds how so?
This aged well. Chetan Prakasha showed mathematically and rigorously that perception and reality do not match *at all* in theoretical evolutionary games. (w Hoffman but Prakasha did equation and derivations)
I am happy that someone else saw this.
@@cutecats1368 🙂👍🏻. We rock. 🐱
More I learn... reality is not really what I thought it was
@@cutecats1368
Well said, the irony is that Thomas Nagel the eminent atheist philosopher has spotted this deep problem with naturalism and discusses it in his book (Mind and consciousness). Similarly, Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic to demonstrate this massive challenge to Naturalism/Adaptation and Plantinga is a great demonstration of the fact that there is clearly superficial conflict between science and faith so the conflict myth is a false dichotomy…
“there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” (Alvin Plantinga)
Similarly, according to Thomas Nagel under materialistic premises…
“evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel).
This speaks volumes coming from a prominent atheist philosopher!!
Equally, according to the expert linguist, agnostic and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky….
“There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky).
Furthermore, evidence from quantum mechanics, particularly quantum superposition clearly demonstrates that at the fundamental level of “physical” reality “atoms” “matter” , for want of a better word, exists that is unmeasurable, invisible, non locational/bi locational and timeless and is effected by consciousness and collapses at the wave function during the observer effect in the double slit light experiment. No one has a clue what’s going on but it is definitely a massive challenge to the current “naturalistic/materialistic” paradigm/dogma. One thing is certain and that is that classical materialism is dead!! Because according to quantum mechanics “matter”…
“can itself be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and (solidity) altogether. At the bottom of the chain of “physical” reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”-abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.” (Scientific American).
The fact is that highly suspect metaphors such as “selfish genes”, and “survival of the fittest” have actually held back the science to a certain degree and even Richard Dawkins who coined the phrase “selfish genes” reluctantly admitted in the end after much criticism from eminent humanist philosophers such as Mary Midgley that he regretted the metaphor. Equally, Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” later stated that he regretted it as it was much abused and misunderstood. The fact is that attributing “selfishness” and “survival”, that is knowledge/epistemology to “Genes” commits the (Homunculus Fallacy/Merelogical Fallacy).
The Homunculus Fallacy/Merelogical Fallacy is synonymous with the mistaken belief that consciousness is the “brain” or is just the “DNA” so we are literally nothing more than our “brain” or our “DNA”. The upshot of these two fallacies is that instincts arise through a neo-Darwinian adaptive process but are not cognitions in the sense that they involve (the recollection of stored) knowledge. We don’t have a “little person” in our (brain) or inside our (genes) or inside our brain chemicals who’s recollecting and experiencing knowledge, “selfishness” or things like “jealousy”. Because “The whole is more than the sum of its parts”
This fallacy attributes to the parts of a human being psychological predicates that make sense only when applied to the whole human being the (whole person). Similarly, the (Merelogical Fallacy) says that you are just “brain” which is clearly ridiculous as the whole is clearly greater than the parts. “Brains” and “Selfish Genes” including “brain chemicals” can’t truly walk, breath, sneeze, taste, smell or see anything without the (whole) person.
Some may argue that you could stimulate “Genes” or “brain chemicals” in a (brain in a vat) to have the illusion of walking or breathing but this is clearly not the same thing and is just pseudo science. Equally, this is absurd as “Genes” or “chemicals” clearly can’t love, have empathy, compassion, experience beauty, bravery, meaning, purpose, moral duties and ethics, that is they don’t experience mind and consciousness. Only the person as a whole can experience knowledge of consciousness. So where in space and time is consciousness because….
“Genes can not be selfish or unselfish, anymore than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological” (Mary Midgley). Equally, brain chemicals can’t fall in love or get emotional when someone leaves the toilet lid up.
So where and when exactly is phenomenal consciousness occurring ? This is where the problem of presupposing that “we” are just biological and chemical robot arises. Because it clearly leads to an infinite regression of "who” exactly is reading and experiencing the image on the brains homunculus of the homunculus!! The signal goes back and back, and can, potentially never end. Some people believe this problem can be solved with the "unmovable mover". Nevertheless, in no uncertain terms it is question begging of the highest order if you assert that “you” or “matter” or “brain chemicals” are the supreme ontological ground of reality and existence, that is the supreme ontological ground of mind and consciousness. An ontological ground of reality that starts it all off, who pushes the train has the greatest explanatory power and is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis according to Plantinga. The unmovable mover described as your "soul", you’re inner consciousness, the spark of the divine the unmoved "homunculus", your personality, the you that developed inside of the intelligent, evolved medium of Homo Sapiens that ultimately is searching for meaning, purpose and love.
The fact is that the only way to solve the hard problem of consciousness is to re think your underlying philosophical presuppositions. The only workable solution here is to view consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe. Like the laws of physics consciousness is irreducible to “matter”.
Equally, I’m not making any appeals to authority, but on the cognitive level Einstein utilised a more nuanced approach and demonstrated that “matter” is nothing more substantive than the curvature of space and time which is why he rejected atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness. The God of Spinoza/deism/panentheism. Similarly, Einstein’s closest friend Michelle Besso, who Einstein stated “was the greatest sounding board in Europe”, rejected atheism for theism. Fascinating subject!!
All the best to you and your family and keep safe ❤️
Totally agree with you. I think there is a general arrogance among naturalists/militant atheists and an assumption that the natural sciences has a monopoly not only on truth, evidence and empiricism but on meaning as well. The irony is that Plantinga easily demonstrates that this is a metaphysical presupposition that can not be grounded or proven using the strictly reductive materialistic/atheistic paradigm not even using philosophical Naturalism, materialism or atheism because which ever you choose out of the three for most part they clearly exclude metaphysical realities and are lacking in a coherent explanation as to why we should even trust our cognitive faculties in the first place. The only other option they have is nihilism, fatalism or solipsism which is clearly absurd and leads to potentially harmful ideologies.
Empiricism itself is a metaphysical presupposition that can not be justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm as materialism clearly excludes metaphysical realities. You can’t prove empiricism using empiricism, you can’t prove sense data using sense data. The fact is that even the belief that the external world is providing accurate information about reality and existence is a metaphysical presupposition that can not be proven using Naturalism as your grounding philosophy. Hence the famous essay by W Quine (The Two Dogmas of Empiricism).
According to Alvin Plantinga…
“First, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low. (To put it a bit inaccurately but suggestively, if naturalism and evolution were both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable.) But then according to the second premise of my argument, if I believe both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. If I have a defeater for that belief, however, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means that I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. So my belief that naturalism and evolution are true gives me a defeater for that very belief; that belief shoots itself in the foot and is self-referentially incoherent; therefore I cannot rationally accept it.” (Alvin Plantinga).
The first premise that Alvin Plantinga uses is very pertinent to the debate and is not an appeal to ignorance or question begging as it is taken directly from Darwin himself from what’s commonly known as “Darwin’s Doubt”. So this is just how science works because the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/deism/panentheism is just an inference to the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory power and is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis. So this is a genuine problem for naturalists that plantinga raises as even Darwin recognised the problem of coherence under a strictly reductive materialistic/naturalistic paradigm….
“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind.”
The horrid doubt expressed by Charles Darwin stems from realizing that evolution “selects” traits that promote behaviours suited purely for survival and reproductive success/advantage, not necessarily for forming “true” beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality reliably. If the blind, mindless undirected hand of evolution is responsible for the cognitive faculties we possess, then it is unlikely that under naturalism we have evolved cognitive faculties that produce “true” beliefs reliably.
Similarly, the prominent naturalistic philosopher Patricia Churchland points out that information regarding the fundamental nature of reality, that is “truth” takes a back seat. In fact under naturalistic premises…
Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. … Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.” (Patricia Churchland).
The second premise states that if one accepts naturalism and evolution and realizes that naturalism and evolution render probable that one’s cognitive faculties are unreliable, then one has good reason to believe that one’s own cognitive faculties are unreliable. However, since one’s own cognitive faculties are the fundamental source of all of one’s beliefs, the third premise states that once one admits that one’s cognitive faculties are unreliable all of one’s beliefs are epistemically undermined, including one’s beliefs in naturalism and evolution. Finally, since accepting naturalism and evolution can provide one with a reason to disbelieve naturalism and evolution, it follows that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating and cannot be accepted rationally. And on the basis of these reasons, Plantinga concludes that naturalism and evolution cannot be accepted rationally.
According to C.S. Lewis’s (Argument from Reason) the problem with naturalism is that it is committed to the view of reality where purposeless cause-and-effect relations without exception bring about every event, including mental events, like thinking or reasoning. Consequently, given naturalism, what is believed to be an act of reason is actually brought about by the natural world’s closed series of non-rational causes-and-effects. The upshot is that the naturalist would have to conclude that his belief in naturalism is the byproduct of a series of non-rational causes-and-effects. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then it implies that no one can have rational grounds for believing that naturalism is true. Lewis succinctly states the self-refuting problem with naturalism raised in his AFR:
“[I]f naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.” (CS Lewis).
While Lewis does not provide a formal statement of the argument, I think it can be expressed faithfully with the following propositions:
(8) Naturalism is the philosophical position that essentially excludes the possibility for beliefs to stand in ground-and-consequent relations.
(9) A necessary condition for rational thought is for beliefs to stand in ground-and-consequence relations.
Therefore,
(10) Naturalism cannot satisfy a necessary condition for rational thought to exist. (from 8 & 9)
(11) Any philosophical position that excludes rational thought is self-defeating. Therefore,
(12) Naturalism is self-defeating. (from 10 & 11)
In sum, Lewis’s argument proceeds by arguing that naturalism is a philosophy that only admits cause-and-effect relations and leaves no room for beliefs to be produced by ground-and-consequent. Since ground-and-consequent relations are necessary for rationality, anyone who arrives at a philosophical position that does not include them must admit that nothing, including his position, can be supported rationally. Finally, a philosophical position that entails nothing can be supported rationally must itself not be supported rationally, and so there are no grounds for believing it is true. Therefore, someone who became convinced that naturalism is true would also be in a position to believe that there is no rational support or grounds for believing it is true. Hence, any proof for naturalism would yield the self-refuting position of being a “proof that there are no such things as proofs.”
@@georgedoyle7971 Thanks for that layout. Yes Im convinced that most or all monism eliminates truth claims, but now I have an organized case. I used to be an arrogant scientific materialist. I wonder what it is about that stance that breeds such arrogance? No matter what is being discussed (esp atheist vs theist) the main argument is very often “Om g yer ssooooo ______ 🙄”
I’m actually convinced that evolution has been disproven as being plausible or even possible as explanation for origins of life - or of any “forms” at all (a group only slightly more general than species). The cambrian explosion is now down to ten million years max. Most multicellular evolution supposedly occurred in ten million years. Most major body/brain designs appear suddenly then. The only reasonable view is that a lot information was added to the global genome map from outside the biosphere. This is not a fringe opinion. See on here “Mathematical challenges to Darwin’s.” and a quote therein at 50: 10. Atheist and leading information theorist from Yale making that statement. A briefer summary is here in “information enigma” with stephen meyer. Just the brushstokes of the draconian response any academician faces can be seen in otherwise goofy film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. But that film doesn’t include the later insane response to James Tour who was rocketing along until 2016 when he said, available here, “The origins of life have NOT been explained”. Achieving stuff like society head appointments, Time top 50 most influential scientist in the world, best synthetic organic chemist, funding upon funding... and then no notable items, not a single honor or achievement, from the very day he said evolution is a joke as explanation for origins. And the next year he became a Christian and sealed his fate. Add to this that now even physicist Alan Guth has acknowledged that fine tuning of both the fundamental constants and the initial physical quantities is notable and begs some explanation. He was a longtime holdout but w the cosmological constant he has acknowledged. (Alan Guth “fine tuning”) This leaves *only* Sean Carroll among all theoretical physicists of note who question we have a type of fine-tuning (many claim anthorpic but as Penrose recently said that strains credulity when fine tuning gets to dozens of orders of magnitudes - the odds that a full brain have quantum-fluctuated into existence and is having this experience is MUCH more likely than that there are that many universes and we are in the appropriate one.) So even granting the conflicting world-view of naturalism, we don’t know what’s going on to the degree which arrogant pseudo-intellectuals are taught. Under evolution tab, Wik site says “the first cellular organism which is the ‘parent’ of all of life on earth came into being 4.13 billion years ago” and not a word about the debate now happening. (See “information enigma “ with meyer for brief summary, except it excludes some of the big names involved). Most of the counter response is to call names, and claim the person cannot fathom evolution, and to censor.
Basically even granting naturalism and/or scientific materialism, just those aspects of fine-tuning and genome interventions which point beyond the earth eliminate atheism and imply:
1. Deism
2. Theism
Or
3. Aliens
But fine-tuning eliminates 3 because the agent must be outside the universe not in it. And genome interventions eliminate 1 as they occurred recently. So even assuming their untenable worldview, atheism falls hard.
Love that Alvin got interviewed by Jerry Stiller
LOL
12:26 - He coughs
Thanks
I was looking for that. Much appreciated.
That was the most meaningful thing.
From a naturalistic evolutionist perspective, the existence of religious believes is the most outstanding evidence that holding false believes can be absolutely advantageous for survival.
I am a naturalistic evolutionist, and I agree with Plantinga that evolution’s only “goal” is to produce behaviors fitted for survival. But I think having a more accurate view of reality than your competition is absolutely advantageous for survival. Plantinga seems to be claiming that it’s not. If you take two animals of the same species, both having behaviors that help them survive, but one has a slightly more accurate belief about the world, that one is definitely going to do better when circumstances require them to improvise or go “off script” from the learned behavior. The more granular your understanding of a system, the better you can troubleshoot when things go wrong.
Plantinga’s point, though, is a good one! That’s why the scientific method is so important: we must test our beliefs. Reason without testing has lead us to strange places.
Spicy section: this is a bit of a cheap shot on my part, but from where I’m sitting it really looks like religion emerged from exactly what Plantinga points out: false beliefs that produce behaviors that assist in survival.
Also, this very argument seems to imply that Plantinga sees human reason as spiritually inspired, or something like that. I think the naturalistic perspective encourages a much more humble and, therefore, flexible mind.
2 animals
All of them can reproduce and live because for they have evolved 4 living
Evolution wont care about this slight accuracy about the world
This is where the argument comes up in the first place
@@emrmmtmhmt7315 Dude, wtf are you talking about?
Indeed, if you are a naturalistic evolutionist, the most likely explanation for religious believe having survived for so long and evolved is that they are false beliefs that produce behaviors that assist in survival. Moreover, religious believe has been so widely held. Therefore, from a naturalistic evolutionist perspective, religious believes is the most outstanding evidence that holding false believes can be "absolutely advantageous for survival".
@@miqueiaspaulo1 The key word in your entire post was ‘can’. Just because false beliefs CAN be advantageous, doesn’t mean true belief CANNOT be advantageous nor that true beliefs will not outweigh false beliefs.
Also, the type of belief that a person could be wrong about has to be addressed. Whether or not a glass you’re about to pick up actually exists and whether an invisible magician exists are two vastly different likelihoods of being true or false.
So, which do you think would be more advantageous to survival, true or false beliefs. If EVERY belief you had was false, how long do you think you’d survive vs. if EVERY belief you held was true?
@@miqueiaspaulo1 …glad to see we’re in agreement…🧐 In all honesty though, I’ve been talking about this argument a lot lately with my childhood Christian buddy (has a BA in philosophy) and I haven’t brought up my relating this to religion with him, so that indicates I shouldn’t have brought it up here. I apologize for my trollish behavior.
…
…
…
…
[now I’m just trying to show humility in order to weaponize kindness against Christianity 🤣 😈]
I really don’t get why a belief generated by our cognitive faculties isn’t relevant for adaptation... A man is hunting and finds footprints which leads him to believe there is a certain animal nearby and the belief motivates him to follow the tracks in search of it. If he indeed finds it, he thus obtains food necessary for his survival and the belief turned out to be true. So isn’t our behavior determined by our beliefs? What am I missing?
It doesn't matter what happens with your mind as long as you have the right stuff happening with your neurons and as long as you behave in a certain way. Think about bacteria and cockroaches, they are way better at this survival and reproduction game than us humans, yet they have no believes about anything at all. Also, think about this: you can have a correct belief that some food is poisoned, and you can also have a wrong belief that it's possessed by demonic forces. Either way you're not going to eat it and that's all that matters. Your beliefs are irrelevant as long as you behave a certain way.
Imagine a man seeing footprints, not having any beliefs whatsoever, but fallowing them anyway, like a mosquito fallowing your breath even tho it doesn't have any beliefs what so ever. As far as evolution is concerned, your believes may be nothing but a side effect.
Terriccota Pie how does this prove supernaturalism, even if this argument is sound you still cannot prove supernaturalism. The way i see it is either naturalism or skepticism. However what is meant by beliefs is debatable, some people are not convinced that such things exist (eliminitive materialism).
Terriccota Pie There have been numerous rebuttals to this argument, which in my opinion sufficiently refute Plantinga. Too long to put in a comment but read Evan Fales’ article or Fitelson and Sober’s joint reply.
@@kemal3599 Would you link the article's titles so I can find them Please.
@@kemal3599 If you're talking about Evan Fales' article, "Darwin's Doubt; Calvin's Calvery," Plantings responded to that in _Naturalism Defeated?: Essays On Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism_. But I don't think it serves any purpose to say, "So & so refuted so & so." We could play that game until we got to the last person who responded, but the fact that somebody got the last word wouldn't tell us anything about who was right.
When I drive home after work, yes, I cannot know my house will be at my address, but I’m pretty sure it’s not 50/50.
But isn't that only so if your epistemic faculties are at least reliable enough to go over the 50% mark?
I agree that natural selection and adaptation does not care about human perception. However, first, I would question why the odds of a belief being “true” is not just neutral in the scenario, but low. Second, I would ask whether there is a non-circular definition of “truth”, if one exists.
It would be low because there are more ways to be wrong and only one way to be right.
Aristotle gives a definition of truth in his Metaphysics.
«To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true»
@@sak415 Frankly though, Aristotle’s definition kind of just seems like a re-iteration rather than providing us with more useful details on how to look into the matter.
@@wiwaxiasilver827 let me try to rephrase it for you.
You hold a true belief when your belief correspond to reality.
@@sak415 Then, how may we define “reality”?
@@wiwaxiasilver827 i would maybe use Kants Noumenal here.
Reality is the way the world is prior to the experience of the human mind.
Although i dont think this completely covers it.
But in general i think we all have an idea of what reality is.
Naturalism and evolution lead to total scepticism. Love it!
Why love a falsehood? There is no good reason why the confluence of evolutionary theory and naturalism must lead to skepticism, and certainly not radical skepticism. Plantinga's argument grossly over simplifies the situation completely missing important points regarding social vs. biological evolution and the role of socially evolved science in correcting for deficiencies in our biologically evolved "common sense" mode of reasoning.
@@snuzebuster Socially evolved Science involves the Social Sciences, which are supplemented by Scientific Philosophy, not eliminated by it. I´ll have to listen to Plantinga´s argument again to get if he´s not basically arguing the problem of naturalism as revealed in materialist anti-phenomenology and anti-religiosity. I see myself, and approaches like Unitarian Universalism and United Church of Christ Open Theology in light of your kind of suggestion, in which interfaith spiritual growth training reveals the falsehood of much doctrinal Christianity in its disempowerment of personal effort and disconnect from Jesus´ legacy in University-based education. That requires recognizing the legitimacy of non-Science epistemologies, and the benefits of both spiritual practice and multi- inter-disciplinarity in recognizing the value of Jesus in combination with the value of other spiritual traditions, like Buddhism´s Four Noble Truths and Shao Lin Kung Fu, Hindu Yoga, and Taoist Tai Chi. In Christianity, along with University-based learning and Therapeutic Psychology (Transpersonal, too), there is the 12 step group Recovery Movement, among many other innovations in the pot pourri of the Freedom of Religion.
@César Rabbit After one viewing, I´m interpreting Plantinga´s position as addressing the problem of materialist assumptions, and denial of the relevance of Social Science epistemologies. Your unelaborated reply isn´t actually substantive, and requires clarifying Plantinga´s argument in order to make its purpose and potential effect clearer.
@César Rabbit Well, I love a good discussion, but to go beyond attempted zings, there needs to be some substance. Off hand after one viewing some days ago, I´m thinking that Plantinga has built his argument on the "randomness" attributed to Evolution, and the historical non-abstracted reality of it.
Not necessarily. You can believe evolution equipped us with accurate cognitive faculties to a degree, even if they aren't 100% accurate. For example, we can see some parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but not all of it. We can form more concepts than a dog or a chimpanzee, but there is no reason to believe we have reached the upper limit. Human thinking isn't evolved to understand the ultimate truth. But it is an evolutionary advantage to form some useful mental model of reality. That model is likely to be somewhat representative of the real world. This idea that our senses need to be 100% reliable or they are useless is stupid. Newton's Laws aren't "true" in the ultimate sense. We now have more accurate equations. But they are damn good approximations that work perfectly within certain constraints, just like human cognition.
Doesn't his argument entail that we have no reason to believe the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism theory since it is a product of our cognitive faculty so it is self-referentially defeating?
Nope, since he isn't a naturalist, there is no problem. Only if you hold to naturalism and evolution as being true you run into such difficulties.
@@NationalPK Wouldn't this pose a rebuttal against his argument though. Assuming naturalism and evolution, and assuming EAAN, then the probability of EAAN being true itself is low, but that is itself assuming EAAN?! This is getting me a bit crazy haha!
@@nikolai5012I think that assuming certain truths does not obligate you to reason from the platform those assumed truths provide. We can assume N and E, but we aren't necessarily constrained to its implications for reason. For example, you can imagine a certain world, but you don't have to Imagine yourself as part of such a world.
Another important point is that truth exists independently of it being known, 2+2=4 in every possible world, all truth regarding any possible or impossible world. If I adopt a view that allows me to grasp truth, affirm truth, reason towards truth, by doing so I'm not directly creating any truth, I'm simply now able to know it.
Adopting such a view is not only understandable, since objective truth exists anyway, its also better in the sense that you can do more with it, its the only way to progress to a correct worldview(its our best shot), even if that worldview doesn't allow us to know anything, and it makes life livable, at no cost. Hence, no truth is lost, and a life is lived.
@@NationalPK _"Nope, since he isn't a naturalist, there is no problem."_
*Nope, him not being a naturalist is irrelevant to the point Nikolai made.*
*If N&E is true, according to the EAAN, Plantinga should not trust his faculties to assess the truth of his EAAN.*
*According to the EAAN, if naturalism is true, you shouldn't conclude naturalism is true NOR FALSE because supposedly our cognitive faculties are not reliable enough to do so.*
*The argument is asinine. The argument fails just by assuming evo wouldn't promote reliable over unreliable cognitive faculties. Obviously, more reliable faculties are more beneficial to survival than unreliable cognitive faculties.*
@@AsixA6 I've addressed what you said in a comment that was posted here, but it got deleted.. idk why
Okay but there are beliefs that, if held, would be disadvantageous for survival. And of course there are also beliefs which are advantageous for survival. Therefore natural selection would have an effect on beliefs. Now the only question is whether or not true beliefs are more likely to lead to an increase in survival and whether or not false beliefs put you at a disadvantage. I do believe that true beliefs are more likely to increase survivability than false beliefs would. If I'm right, then naturalistic Evolution actually provides us reason to trust our faculties, contrary to what this guy is saying.
not true: because if you listened to what he is saying; you are using your mind right now but you cannot trust it because according to evolution your mind creates beliefs which may or may not be true including evolution itself. Even if you tested things it would be tested from your perspective which is using your mind. :)
okay but it's being assumed the evolution leads to beliefs that can't be trusted. I don't think that's the case. That's my point. Evolution actually gives us reasons to put trust in our beliefs since true ones are largely beneficial for survival and false ones are largely disadvantageous.
The issue is that evolution leads to whatever beliefs are practical for survival. There’s a huge difference between pragmatism and rationalism. If humans were “trained” by nature in any way that punished rationality, we’d be forced to become irrational. It’s like any Orwellian society (1984, Animal Farm) where the reasonable thinkers are punished or killed until everyone must give up objectivism and intellectually conform to the world they live in.
It’s impossible to give an example of something we believe that is irrational because if we knew it was irrational, we wouldn’t believe it.
To take an evolutionary perspective on thought, though, is to say that everything we know, we know for strictly utilitarian reasons for the purpose of perpetuating the species. Morality, mathematics, empathy, reason, faith, science, and everything else are things we only believe because our belief in them serves a purpose. That’s a bad reason to say that something is true; that believing it is beneficial.
@Christian Slayer because he doesn't believe in naturalism.
Actually, beliefs have zero affect on survival. People who survive together have extremely divergent beliefs, and none of those beliefs kills anyone.
Behaviors can affect survival, beliefs cannot.
Plantinga is right, we can’t rely on our ability to reason. That’s why we test our beliefs!
Fantastic argument!
Are you insane? This is an asinine argument leads to the ridiculous idea that you can neither believe naturalism is true NOR FALSE!!! Lmfao!!!
@@AsixA6 You are making baseless assertions. Where is your defeater?
@@RedefineLiving No, I made no baseless assertions. Feel free to cite one so, I can explain why you’re wrong.
@@AsixA6 You said “ this is an asinine argument”, now stop being evasive and defend your assertion.
@@RedefineLiving *I did. The rest of that very sentence explained it.*
This is an asinine argument that leads to the ridiculous idea that you can neither believe naturalism is true NOR FALSE!!! Lmfao!!!
If naturalism is true, then, according to the asinine EAAN, your belief that naturalism is false, is just as irrational as believing it’s true!!!
but i believe that if i knock my phone off the table it will hit the ground because of gravity. it isnt 50 50
Dr Plantinga didn't argue that that was 50 50. He argued a different proposition altogether.
gravity is one of the at most 50% true beliefs. closer to the point of what Plantinga was arguing was *if* you had a belief that if you knocked your phone off of the table that it would survive damage when it impacts the floor/ground-*if* that was your belief, then your belief might be false. however, both your example and mine ignore the adaptability (survivability = b/c that is the point of adaptation, right?) aspect of his argument.
maybe this example is better:
suppose, due to some catastrophe (nuclear, volcanic-winter, climateChange, involving the destruction of the ozone layer perhaps), humans moved underground (an adaptive change for survival of the species).
100 generations later the earth recovers and is livable, but . . .
humans are still living underground, never seeing the sky, sun, etc., b/c they still possess the belief that the surface of the earth is uninhabitable, they have adapted and survived, but their current belief is false b/c the surface of the earth has recovered and is now habitable by humans.
so, we have an existing/current adaption that allows the species to continue, but the current belief is false.
another example might be one from the book of Proverbs:
Proverbs 22:13 NASB
[13] The sluggard says, "There is a lion outside; I will be killed in the streets!"
this verse is intended to give voice to a *false belief* b/c there is no ancient palestinian lion in the streets
but
this can actually in some cases turn out to be beneficial for adaptive survivability. how so?
due to a false belief about a particular danger outside, one stays inside, has his food delivered, shops online, works from home, does electronic banking and taxes, and never ventures outside-so, he doesn’t get hit by a car and die (an actual possibility) due to his false belief that a hungry lion is roaming the street outside his home just looking for a chance to eat him for lunch.
@@pj-0 Your example is worthless. You're describing adaptive changes within an individual's (or group's) behavior, which is not remotely related to evolutionary adaptation. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing about any non-naturalistic philosophy that would help you out in that situation. The true adaptive behavior might be to hold a stable position, while cautiously and systematically exploring your world (this would be pragmatism and science, not either naturalism or non-naturalism).
The bigger issue is that Plantinga's argument requires a shockingly stupid understanding of any educated person's idea of evolution to make any sense. He seems to believe that we think every single behavior is individually selected for. It certainly doesn't follow from anything else he's said that our beliefs would simply be extra stuff "on top of" our behaviors.
There are many reasons to believe your phone will hit the ground. There an infinite number of hypotheses. That's what plantinga is saying
@@tobieaina But the hypothesis might be irrelevant. That is not the knowledge that is critical. The knowledge that is critical is that it happens with regularity and that can be ascertained and fine-tuned with repeated experimentation. The more often it happens, the more assurance there is that it will continue to happen. Of course there are extenuating circumstances, but in each case, as we learn more, it becomes obvious when those extenuating circumstances will apply. One can adjust one's behavior to that regularity and to the exceptions. In each case knowledge is accumulating. Regardless of this argument, that pattern that I described is how humans learned things.
Here’s an example:
Imagine there are two ancient hunters. They’re out roaming for buffalo when a tiger jumps out of the bush. One hunter thinks “oh! It’s a tiger! I will be eaten!” and his brain thus triggers a flight response.
The other hunter thinks “oh! It’s a tiger! He’s going to rob me of my clothes!” and his brain thus triggers a flight response.
Evolutionarily, those two hunters are indistinguishable. They both ran away which was the correct action aimed towards survival. But as these guys reproduce and their underlying neurology adapts to survivability, their beliefs “float along” with them as Plantinga states. Whether or not the beliefs are true are irrelevant - as long as the actions they produce help them survive, it’s fair game.
The tiger isn’t mugging the man. So one of the hunters was wrong. But that doesn’t matter. Therefore, if evolution is true and naturalism is true, then beliefs on average have a 50/50 shot of being actually true vs false. If that’s the case, how can we reliably trust in our cognitive abilities?
This goes very deep because it questions the very reliability of our cognition. How do you know that you can reliably apply logic? Use facts and evidence? The very thoughts that you have may not be true but you just believe them. Evolution doesn’t care about facts and logic. It cares about survival. So the probability that we can arrive at correct and reliable cognition is very low on a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview.
@Questa Semplice Animazione While I largely agree, I still think there is something to the argument, though perhaps underdeveloped. Because if the metric, through the whole evolutionary history is "it has to cause significant problems to be false", you essentially have to have a fundamentally pragmatic definition of truth to consistently maintain your belief in the truth-directed nature of your mind (cf. Jordan Peterson, who seems to have done this). The usefulness of the belief therefore is its truth-value, not a consequence of it.
But relating to the tiger thing: I've heard the example used of the belief that porcupines can shoot their spikes, or whatever they're called, at you. This isn't the case, but it keeps people from messing with porcupines, which really is quite dangerous, especially before modern medicine. I think the real reason is something to do with the microscopic structure of the spikes, which we couldn't have found out for all the centuries where we didn't have microscopes.
How would you handle cases like this, where the disadvantage of a false belief is negligible, while its utility is very high?
Certainly not by just calling them true?
@@johannesgh90 I think that in a significant majority of cases, any widespread false belief is a result of deception. The ability to decieve is quite a useful skill in species that rely on patterns to make their decisions, right? It's a form of power. I guess that the first ever guy that was seriously harmed by a porcupine may have decided to decieve his fellow men to have them handle porcupines carefully, since he knew that if he were honest, many people would have underestimated the threat. Human know that the ability to discern truth of others, especially young people, is not perfect, which is why deception is a selective advantage most of the time.
So the average human ability to discern truth is not greater than the average human ability to decieve, but I think that group efforts increase the ability to discern the truth more than the ability to decieve, which is something that comes from the inherent property of truth: it is consistent.
This also explains why humans prefer social situations of cooperation over confrontation: that's not obviously beneficial behaviour, generally speaking apex predators like us evolve to be territorial but the damage lonely humans recieve to their ability to discern the truth makes social groups preferrable.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I mis-conceptualize, misunderstand, and just straight up don't get stuff all the time. I think, if you include self-deception, possibly it's correct that deception plays a bigger role than misunderstandings, but A the latter are still significant, and B I don't want to assume the worst about people.
So in every case I "try on" the idea that the reason is incompetence-like, rather than of the genus of evil, so to speak. This is called Hanlon's Razor. If I didn't do that, I'd be attacking you for trying to deceive me right now, because I think you're wrong.
So:
1. People misunderstand and are honestly wrong all the time, do you not see that?
2. If 1 is consistent with your point, how is anything you said relevant to the previous discussion?
3. Assuming guilt in everyone rather than innocent incompetence is unfair to them, and will make you miserable; at least consider the possibility of the alternative.
@@johannesgh90 But the solution is iterative thinking, is it not? I would handle cases like that by continued observation, pondering, discussing with others, associating where similar situations inform. Perhaps it's the concept of 'truth.' I think truth is reflecting reality, not some isolated bit of data that cannot be related to real life situations. As to the porcupine quill thing, how do you know porcupines can't shoot their quills, but that their quills are still dangerous? You know it by further thinking of it, listening to others, taking a closer look and associations. Knowledge isn't obtained as an 'all at once' revelation but by experience.
@@rizdekd3912 Yes, in this world, created by God, all of this is correct. But in the imaginary world where all of our structure is completely evolutionarily determined then it doesn't help at all. Because all of our intuitions (e.g. our sense of what's logical) and, in a phrase, every tool in our toolbox would be shaped to guide us towards useful, not necessarily true, beliefs.
So, because all of our structure - how our brain works in every way, our senses, our gut feelings, etc. - would be teleologically directed in the wrong way, as a result every course correction, since it would come from that structure, would have the same problem. Every one would be much more likely to bring us further off course than closer to the truth because the range of potential thoughts on any subject is, at least practically speaking, infinite, or at the very least enormous, while the correct answer is just one and good approximations of it very few and not at all infinite in the same way.
So the problem is recursive in that sense; that every correction is just another error, because the error would be built into us on Naturalism. But, being a Theist (a Christian, to be precise) I don't have this problem in my worldview since I was designed and at least not exclusively evolved. I don't want to get into the definition of Truth, because that's a lot, but I basically agree with what you said about it and I don't think defining it on a "I know it when I see it" basis will be problematic.
The porcupine thing I just heard some years ago in a discussion between men who I consider very scientifically literate, and essentially I'm taking it on faith; trusting their judgement and character. That faith is supported by both my judgement and just the general feeling I got listening to them on that and other occasions. Besides, I just find the content of the story very believable. So that's why I believe it, and I think I'm justified in doing so for the purposes of this conversation where nothing bad will happen if I'm wrong.
Sorry how long this comment is, I'm too tired to make it shorter.
There is also a beforelife that determines our current psychophysical condition.
It is like using your yardstick to measure the accuracy of your yardstick. No matter what it says or how far off it is it will always agree with itself. Making it useless as a standard.
To measure the accuracy of your yardstick you have to use your yardstick there is no other way. Now, what you cannot do is to only use your yardstick but then the analogy crumbles because that's not the case with our cognitive faculties.
But even if it was the case that you cannot use your cognitive abilities to test the reliability of your cognitive abilities it would be a problem for every position not just naturalism or materialism. What Plating'as argument is hinting at the end is solipsism and you cannot escape it with theism or any other worldview.
@@pedrovillalobos6221
Well then we are at an impasse, believe what you want for now.... Death will alleviate all controversy.
@@GSpotter63 Nope, no even death could alleviate it. If I die and find my self in hell according to solipsism there is still no way to tell if what I'm experience is "real".
This is why solipsism is a moot point when used against any particular position.
@@pedrovillalobos6221
Then even this conversation becomes moot.. If you truly believe solipsism is our real condition then just go live your pointless imaginary life and let others go live theirs.... Unless you have doubts that is????
I do wonder ... If our exitance is truly just an illusion, I wonder what is having the illusion? Could an illusion have an illusion, or is this all just a bunch on nonsense?
@@GSpotter63 I never said that solipsism is our real condition. I contend against the idea that solipsism, which is what the argument of Platinga devolves when you analyze it, works against naturalism any better than against theism or any other position.
For the naturalist/materialist, the problem is even more penetrating than that…
Firstly, he has to explain how it’s even possible for enormously complex biological systems to somehow emerge from nothing and then, how all the different parts then somehow come together to cohere in way that is able to give rise to the highest expression of personhood - CONSCIOUSNESS, given the fact that it’s just not possible intelligent abstractions (ideas, beliefs…) to emerge from purely material causes!
And secondly, even if the impossible were even possible, then Plantinga is correct… the naturalist/materialist has absolutely no way of knowing if any of his beliefs were in fact true! In fact, he has no warrant for even BELIEVING that any of his beliefs are true to ANY degree of probability!
So, the real kicker then, is this… it is just not possible for the naturalist/materialist to come into possession of what Francis Schaeffer called ‘TRUE KNOWLEDGE’ - for all his brilliance and all his learning and all his encyclopaedic acumen, what the naturalist/materialist therefore claims as ‘knowledge’, in fact amounts to nothing more than ‘knowledge falsely so-called’ (1Tim 6:20), or what Scripture terms ‘foolishness’, only because the Fool (meant in the Biblical sense, not pejoratively) finds himself “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” - 2 Tim 3:7!
The reverse it just as true. If there is a god who created everything and keeps everything running/working...including the way humans think and what they think and can alter what things humans think about of base their thinking one (premises/facts) in ways no human can explain or understand or even be aware of, then we are in the same boat. Without some sort of underlying assumption (faith) that said god is honest with humans, we still can't 'know' anything for certain. We would be at the mercy of god's whims. In fact we couldn't even look to survival as any indicator that what we do or think has any bearing on our survival since a god could 'keep' us surviving artificially.
Despite the improbability of sentient life arising naturally, which I agree stretches credulity, if it did, I see no particular reason to assume it's thoughts (the thoughts of thinking evolving creatures), if they arose based on, and supporting a process of, survival, would not be a sufficient basis to assume what we conclude is true enough. Don't you think animals also think and draw conclusions about the world around them with sufficient accuracy to survive? I watch our cat. She goes out and starts studying the back yard. If she sees something move...she moves towards it to investigate. Is she not assessing her surroundings using a mental process that takes into account many environmental factors and then coordinating her movements based on whether she thinks her movements will achieve her desired goal....to get closer to the movement? Why would human's thinking process be at least as reliable?
Perceptions of the world around us being accurate would seem to me to be a definite survival advantage. It would lead to some false beliefs, but the individuals best able to act on true beliefs would have longer, healthier lives with greater reproductive success.
So we have reliable, yet imperfect faculties. Different people still hold different beliefs, that are mutually contradictory, noted by the more than 100 different, mutually exclusive religions.
"So long as the behavior provides advantage, whether the belief behind it is true or not is irrelevant."
Short term yes, long term no. Once a behavior stops being beneficial, a false belief will prevent adaptation to new conditions.
"So given evolution and Naturalism are true, what are the odds that any given beliefs are true? It's gotta be 50/50"
Deep Sigh
No. It doesn't "gotta be 50/50". Just because there are two possible outcomes, doesn't automatically mean it's a 50/50 shot. If you didn't do the math, and you don't have any idea what the answer actually is, say that. Don't pretend you know, and don't flat out lie. False beliefs get weeded out at a faster rate than true ones. A true belief that's weeded out is likely to come up again, while false ones that disappear are unlikely to return.
I was going to leave a comment here, but you said most of what I would say to the EAAN. It seems so obvious to me, that getting better models of reality aids survival, that I don't understand how otherwise intelligent people can believe otherwise.
Here’s a thought, let’s compartmentalize belief into two categories, belief about the natural world and belief about the supernatural world. What do you think that would do to the percentages. AP’s EAAN is a mess.
> but the individuals best able to act on true beliefs would have longer, healthier lives with greater reproductive success.
Says who?
> Once a behavior stops being beneficial, a false belief will prevent adaptation to new conditions.
This is contradictory to the atheistic position. Why is religiosity so universal if it didn't have benefits(beyond short-term)? It would seem to the atheistic both a false belief and long-term beneficial which is why it persists.
Also, no, there's no intrinsic reason to believe false beliefs are not adaptative and may even be more adaptative than true beliefs, especially if the truth is psychologically difficult.
> A true belief that's weeded out is likely to come up again, while false ones that disappear are unlikely to return.
I think you did not understand his point. You are making a cognitive analysis that requires in your cognitive processes, especially ina complex analysis. That would not be at hand for the one who finds his own process unreliable. At best, either complete skepticism or 50/50 given that you only have the "is this the case or not the case" without any reliable way to gauge which is which.
They seem to be of the opinion that what we [think we] know does not inform our actions. It's difficult to see how anyone could think that and it seems it's an obvious effort to 'find' flaws in naturalism. First many [most?] higher animals all seem to use what they know to inform their future decision/actions and most certainly wrong/incorrect knowledge would either end up with them not surviving as well or perhaps dying and it would be discarded for improved, 'more' correct knowledge. We see it all the time with animals...pets, birds, even fish. They all 'know' things and learn things from their surroundings.
But my view is how does the supernatural...ie a god help whatever problem they think they've identified? If what we know doesn't guide/inform our future actions, then how do we/they know what we know is right even if there IS a god? In fact the natural world would be a better arbiter of what's true vs untrue what is correct vs incorrect knowledge than a world that could be artificially manipulated by a god. What we THINK is true knowledge that helps us survive may be totally wrong/deleterious but god artificially keeps us alive and thriving regardless. What's worse, we can't even rely on our thinking at all since it can be manipulated by a god. We have no way of knowing what is of value, what is right or wrong, nice or vile since all of our thinking and even the standards we use would all depend on this god, the nature of which is totally unknown. Either we have an independent (of God) basis to judge right from wrong and can therefore evaluate what we think god is mandating or we only think what god makes/causes us think and evaluate right from wrong based on the criteria he gives us. So it is circular reasoning to think god is good and claim that what god mandates is good. As Christ asked, 'why call me good?' Indeed humans have no basis to call god good.
@@rizdekd3912 If God has given us free will and the good is defined by his very nature (as opposed to his commands or an external moral code), then I don't think that there is necessarily a contradiction/conflict.
It seems to me that every naturalist I know has accepted Plantinga's argument. But not as an argument against naturalism, rather an argument for nihilism, disbelief in the reliability of their own cognitive faculties, a recognition that our beliefs are driven by instincts and prejudices and are not compatible with reason, etc etc.
Plantinga's argument is "you cannot be a rational or reasonable person and accept both evolution and naturalism", and the naturalists have essentially said "that's right, none of us are rational or reasonable, belief is arbitrary, all that there is is power" etc etc.
thanks for proving that your cognitive faculties are not reliable.
I don't accept it, I think it's fatally flawed. And I'm a naturalist and not a nihilist.
@@osmosis321 Plantinga thinks that our rationality is so unreliable that it's completely useless for survival, and therefore cannot have been naturally selected. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard anyone say. Ironically, one of the best examples of the failure of the intellect of which I've ever heard is Plantinga's belief set. However, we have to question whether he, or most other Christians, actually believe the goofy stuff they claim. If Plantinga truly, deep down, believes that he's saved by Jesus and will be going after death to join Jesus in paradise forever, why doesn't he go around each and every day hoping to die as soon as possible? My theory is that his intellect is fallible enough to allow him to acquire such beliefs as a surface pretense, but reliable enough, in its core functioning, to keep him from doing stupid stuff that would get him dead. Thus, natural selection has given us an Alvin Plantinga whose mind is fit enough to have allowed his genes to be passed to the next generation. I'll admit that is indeed evidence that natural selection has not been up to the task of totally optimizing his intelligence or the reliability of the human mind, but we've always known that.
Seems from this the postion that why would truth matter in his example and of course the famous what is truth statement.
As long as behavior results in life and reproduction it wouldn't; but because we claim to believe anything it becomes relative ?then belief itself becomes something of higher order, implying conscious will, which would yield morals based upon benifit to existence and reproductive success; which seems to make humans unique from other life; this then would be the barrier to explain human life as being purely physical, wnr not also of soul. The question then becomes can soul evolve naturally or is it required to be imputed to us?
Pigliucci in refuting his argument said this about Plantinga's idea that evolution with belief in naturalism somehow refutes naturalism "That one also *_doesn’t follow_* from the argument as stated, unless we add an additional, hidden premise: that natural selection is the only way for us to evolve the ability to form (largely) reliable beliefs about the world. But biologists agree that natural selection is just one evolutionary mechanism, and that a number of things come into existence in the biological world as *_byproducts_* of evolution". (All emphasis mine)
@@fgc_rewind Your opinions are simply your opinions. They have no basis in fact and, indeed, you provided no scientific support for them.
Science is underpinned by _methodological_ naturalism not metaphysical naturalism which Plantinga didn't distinguish from. Using that sloppiness he further *assumed* , and falsely, that one mechanism of evolution doesn't select for our mental faculties to be accurate but that's not new or even controversial. Every biologist specializing in evolution knows that. However, evolutionary byproducts are real and demonstrable. If you see fire do you jump in it? Do you willingly jump off a 1000 foot cliff?
@@fgc_rewind We're talking about philosophy and evolution.
In Plantinga's published formal argument - not interviews - he doesn't distinguish between metaphysical or methodological naturalism. Learn his work.
You are *very* confused. His argument is not based on anything you mention in your bafflegab. Learn his argument.
If you don't know the difference between an evolutionary product and byproduct then you're in no position to be here urging. Why do you urge about things you know nothing about?
An example of a product, generally, is a trait that is advantages. A byproduct is a trait that is not necessarily advantages but neither harmless so it's retained.
Again, why are you here urging about things you know nothing about?
@@championdebater7088 I studied philosophy of science and NO ONE says magically methodic naturalism is somehow irrefutable. Even strong anti-Kuhnians like Laudan argue its defensible but not necessary.
“Progress or Rationality? The Prospects for Normative Naturalism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 24, 19-31
Lord there are so many idiotic things in that statement. Evolution is not a fact but as best overlapping statements. Darwinism hoped to unify them but it doesn't. Darwinism is a tautology not a science. Biology is also not a science. Ergo Pigli just begs the question. Have a nice day.
Also how would Pigli explain mathematics - is that also a "byproduct" of evolution LOL
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 Methodological naturalism is not generally taught under philosophy as it's not truth claim but a working assumption of science. It's never taught as irrefutable under philosophy of science and neither did I say it was. Pay attention. Why did you allude to a philosopher of science who did work in the sociology of scientific discovery when that's wholly irrelevant here? I invite you to explain yourself.
I also invite you to address Pigliucci's (PhD in biology, PhD in philosophy, doctorate in genetics) refutation. On occasion he has live streams here in YT and, since you were bold enough to sardonically dismiss him, let me know so you can join us in the live stream and present you work directly refuting him.
But how reliable is the supernatural, Alvin?
He must take for granted his god-given faculties are reliable.
@@fgc_rewind Reality begs to differ. Minds do not exist independently. www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23666726
@@stephengalanis Which bit of the article are you pointing at that gives you such confidence? Which bit proves your view beyond doubt? It seems you have great faith in science. Embodied cognition is a theory just as valid as the dualism of Descartes. Theories can describe parts of nature, and science can create beautiful formulae describing parts of reality accurate to 15 decimal places, but theories can never reach down into the deep hidden foundations of reality to know the ultimate hidden true workings of the creation - people can guess some axioms of reality, make workable approximations and have a theory that has some explanatory and predictive power, but they will not get to the real universal truth; there are just too many guesses on theories that can fit some or all the data points to greater or lesser degree. So I would beg to differ with the overly confident belief that fundamental reality is currently well known, that statements of fact can be made in extreme confidence, or even that deep fundamental truths can be really discovered through science. More skepticism is required, not less. As Plantinga said (9.20-9.30ish), the best attitude a naturalist can take is one of total skepticism and say he does not know anything.
@@peterberr3888 //As Plantinga said (9.20-9.30ish), the best attitude a naturalist can take is one of total skepticism and say he does not know anything.//
But how reliable is the supernatural? Selective scpeticism won't do. Be consistent or you lose credibility.
This is a Noel Plum video from 2012, where he makes the same point but in good enough detail that I needn't repeat him. ruclips.net/video/vbhTaQe5vJ4/видео.html
@@stephengalanis Really? A BBC article should give us pause for thought? Really?
It seems to me that naturalists would not use the word "truth," and would instead use a phrase like "comports with reality." Does this affect his argument in any way?
That depends on your definition of truth.
If you hold to the aristotelian definition (as many atheist do or at least should do in their world view) it certanly does not affect the argument.
The definition aristotle gives in the metaphysics is as follows:
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true»
@@sak415 What does affect the argument is his asinine assertion that ureliable cognitive are more beneficial to survival than reliable cognitive faculties. It's also a self defeating argument since, we shouldn't believe naturalism is neither true nor false!!! lmfao!!! If naturalism is true, we shouldn't believe supernaturalism is true nor false. It's bizarre he thinks this is a good argument.
@@AsixA6 you are right.
on naturalism we cant make truth statements.
even about naturalism being true or false.
on theism we have no such problem.
@@sak415 Ahahahaha!!! “On theism” is irrelevant if naturalism is true according to this ridiculous argument. If naturalism is true, according to this stupid argument, your cognitive faculties can’t be trusted to conclude theism is true.
@@sak415 I notice you ignored the point that reliable cognitive faculties are OBVIOUSLY more beneficial to survival than unreliable cognitive faculties.
I find this argument unconvincing. For knowledge about how evolution works to serve as a defeater for the belief that our faculties are reliable, we need to know how evolution works in detail. That is, we need to carefully investigate the process of evolution empirically, to see whether it produces creatures that track the truth (which it could very well do even if adaptiveness, rather than truth, is the overarching goal of evolution). Plantinga instead relies on very general assumptions about how evolution works as well as toy cases (his tiger case), thinking that reflection on these assumptions and cases is sufficient to establish the defeater he needs. But I doubt that it is. Detailed empirical investigation often yields surprising results, and in this case, detailed investigation of the evolutionary process could reveal that evolution does indeed select for creatures that happen to track the truth as they navigate their environments.
You would first have to prove evolution
5:30 A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." (*The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80.) The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that undirected random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a purely arbitrary, subjective, materialistic ideology.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic subjective ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
Hey, the numbers seem bewildering. Do you have any sources or material from which you arrived on these numbers that you can share ?
@@randomrandom8030 Yes theyre around, check out on here called “information enigma” stephen meyer. It has the numbers he quoted. Then if interested, “mathematical challenges to Darwin’s “ the quote at 50: 20 by the worlds leading information theorist (a yale atheist). That whole conversation is profound. (Or james tour)
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! This comment is hilarious. The 'probability' of you existing, based on the probability one particular spermatozoa meeting up with one particular egg, is very low. Multiply this low probability to ALL your ancestors having the same low probability and the numbers easily surpass the supposed 'statistical impossibility'. I refer to all that math as 'creationist math'. Hey, anything to keep your belief in magic alive, right? lmao!
Very Logical arguements from Plantinga. I've yet to hear an argument that refutes the premise of believing in Naturalism and Evolution leads to extreme issues. All I hear is irrelevant arguments towards religion, perhaps the egoists are attracted to these beliefs? Must wait for Sam Harris to argue for them.
"I've yet to hear an argument that refutes the premise of believing in Naturalism and Evolution leads to extreme issues"
Indeed, it makes one have the issue of gaining an extremely superior understanding of reality, as opposed to religious beliefs which corrode the reasoning capacity and lead otherwise intelligent and well educated people like Plantinga to make patently nonsense assertions.
You can believe water was created by god, or not, it doesn't much matter as a selection factor, and such a belief is a spandrel, a side effect.
If people believed that salt water is good to drink and fresh water is bad to drink, or if people believed there is no difference between salt and fresh water those would be strong selection disadvantages and therefore natural selection will select out organisms that have those objectively false beliefs.
Beliefs about the way the world works matter and such beliefs must converge on a fair representation of an objectively true reality or natural selection will select those beliefs out.
Plantinga clearly lives in some kind of foggy misty parallel universe where he is incapable of thinking through such simple and obvious facts.
@@stardustypsyche8468 No... what you do is just take for granted how you come to the conclusion that drinking saltwater is bad. You're saying we should just 'ugga bugga' primative talk and think 'salt water = bad, fresh water = good'. Why... because!? ugga bugga.
To refute anything, he has to first demonstrate the assumption that evolution produces false beliefs at least 50% of the time.
The entire problem of Alvin's argument is he supposes that our cognitive faculties and senses correspond to objective truth and he then proceeds.
Naturalism and Evolution are prefectly compatible, as Alvin points out, if we assume cognitive faculties as reflective of survival truths rather than objective truths.
Yes, we cannot know the objective truth, we can only "know" what's things which help our survival.
@@mr.greengold8236The very belief you hold here is not objectively true. You can't even make an argument against this
CS Lewis has a similar argument in his book “Miracles” where he basically asks how we can trust the reasoning of evolved apes.
However I think the same argument Plantinga uses can be used against Christians. Jeremiah 17:9 says “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” And the doctrine of total depravity floats the belief that humans can’t really trust their own reasoning since it has all been corrupted by original sin. So we more or less are in the same boat as naturalists - we can’t trust our beliefs and reasons for those beliefs.
Agreed. He's just saying "If you accept you could be wrong, then you can never truly deny being wrong. I, on the other hand, do not accept the possibility of being wrong >:) Checkmate, atheists!"
Except that he forgot what his Bible said, as you pointed out. He now has to accept that that verse is correct but also not apply to him because he has to use his heart to arrive at the truth of the bible and presuppose that god chose him, assuming that the god of the bible, a book written by humans with deceitful hearts, is also real AND is willing to choose him.
"doesn't matter if the beliefs are true or false", "you can believe in whatever you want as long you behave the right way"... What are we talking about here? Beliefs that do not produce any results in real life? What kind of beliefs are those?
This is so vague and hand waved.
A very analytical and ironclad argument.
Far from it. See my comments above.
Agreed.
@Jotun Heim, completely agree
If the 'ironcladness' is that we can't be sure about our belief in things like evolution, ancient history, religions, outer space because mostly those beliefs aren't survival related, then ok. But esoteric and abstract beliefs like that aren't what we should be talking about. What it seems like we should think about are the very basic beliefs we hold and that seem to drive our day to day actions. EG, the literal concrete knowledge we have that relate to how to eat, how to walk, where to go...especially to avoid danger or obtain sustenance would be the knowledge that I think naturally evolved critters would be able to be more certain of.
The argument has been refuted.
I can state one thing I believe is a negation of his point - I agree that in a Naturalist philosophy, our cognitive faculties are unreliable at correctly depicting reality- this is exemplified through optical illusions & mental disorders.
It is already plain knowledge that the perception of mankind is limited, that’s literally why we ask questions. Despite this fact, we still are able to USE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS to understand things we can not perceive naturally to understand reality on a deeper level than our mind’s ability. Microorganisms & atomic physics are two example of how we’ve created technologies that help us study things imperceptible to our natural, unassisted senses.
Now, in order to substantiate an existence in God - it requires faith - which is an unjustified intuitive assumption. To believe in naturalism is to believe in only what is in existence in space & time - personally I do not make definite claims for or against god because of our limited understanding of existence.
But the argument presented in this video is flawed because it fails to acknowledge humanity’s ability to develop technologies and methodologies that give us deeper understandings of reality beyond our natural senses.
Scientific analysis can tell us nothing about the true origin of the universe (Münchhausen's Trilema) or mind (hard problem of consciousness). Both information will not be relevant to our survival and this is why evolution never developed our capacities to understand this question. Science can help us for survival related tasks but not for the deeper questions. I would as well recommend you this highly funny video from scientist that proofed evolution would developed no sense for truth: ruclips.net/video/oYp5XuGYqqY/видео.html
If we start from neutrality, and go check our hypothesis and find out inconsistencies, that means our cognitive faculties are unreliable. But if we eliminate those inconsistencies as we progress, we cna reach a consistent framework and eventually you end up to the point where you are doing science, Which consists in a body of knowledge that you can test your hypothesis upon it, proving that you faculties, though sometimes unreliable, are in certain conditions reliable and consistent.
We can not do proper science as evolution would never have allowed us to develop the senses necessary to understand the truth: ruclips.net/video/oYp5XuGYqqY/видео.html
No, because as Plantinga says, the very testing does not provide you with reliable truth. There's no way out of that. That you get a consistent answer does not mean it is a reliable or truthful answer. Even if we all agree and we our cognitive faculties provide a consistent answer. If I have a meter of unknown length and I use that as a measurement of other objects, I can get a somewhat consistent measurement system, but I would be unable to know the actual measurement of the objets. The box could be 100 cm or 1,000,000 cms.
@@natanaellizama6559 But we don't measure things in abstract. You brought up the meter...as in so what if the meter is only 99 cm instead of a full 100. It doesn't matter as long as what you can take into account what that measurement means when you're measuring something important like how deep the grain is in your silo. Let's talk about gasoline and measuring how large a gallon is. You can make up any kind of measures you want to measure liquid but when you put gasoline in your car and try to drive you car will care. If you get x miles per gallon (the standard gallon the gas station is using to dispense) and you've decided to use a different, arbitrarily measure, then EITHER you have to be aware of that and make corrections or you'll maybe run out of gas and not get to your destination. And even there, the knowledge to make that correction is a belief and has to be accurate. Let's put that in more critical terms. I boat...out on the ocean. I know about how far I can boat on a gallon of gasoline. My boat doesn't care what I believe about how big a gallon. But it does matter TO ME whether I have a reliable belief in the size of a gallon. If I fail to have enough gas, I may well find myself stranded 30 miles offshore as the sun is setting and a thunderstorm is approaching. THAT is where what I believe about gasoline, my boat and the ocean could very well be survival related. And I can refine and confirm that belief by boating in safe waters and observe how far a given quantity of gas goes. For some reason you all think once you say 'belief' that it become abstract and unrelated to anything critical.
@@rizdekd3912
Yes, you are speaking of practical aspects. Which is fine. You can have practical aspects in equivalence and coherence. But not truth, which is the topic.
Evolution may have given us a tool of coherence, but not truth.
@@natanaellizama6559 If truth is not coherence with reality, I'm not sure it would be. As to things that cannot be linked to first hand factual knowledge, it's always going to be a case of probabilities...something is more or less probably indicative of reality. I don't think the certainty of truth can be determined. And that would be the case even if a god exists. We will always be victim to our perceptions and even worse, we are vulnerable to being deceived by god. We can have faith that we are not being deceived, but by the same token I can have faith that my perceptions of the real world are true...or at least true enough.
We observe a wide range of cognitive ability. We observe a wide range of cognitive error. Assuming sufficient cognitive ability., one will see that naturalism is sustained.This should be clear for all except perhaps those at the very bottom of our cognitive spectrum. I suspect ego is an issue, since that is one of our many cognitive issues that corrupt our ability to reason. I don't find that ANY (myself included) are immune to the various reasoning errors that plague humanity as a whole. It takes work to get past our various issues and we often still fail.
Again on what basis can you assume sufficient cognitive ability when evolution is ordered toward survival and not truth?
@@tobieaina If it is the case that you don't observe the variance of cognitive ability and the variety of cognitive error, then it would seem that you are among the cognitively impaired or among those making excuses of some sort for the deficits observed - and there are a lot of deficits. I suspect that we all suffer some deficits in some area.
I suggest you avoid what I hope was simply a reflexive attempt at defense of belief and actually engage whether another has a point regardless of what you currently believe.
This argument applies well to humans of the past. Ancient humans had all kinds of absurd beliefs. Over time, cultural evolution and science have winnowed away the false beliefs, increasing the proportion of beliefs that are at least verifiably accurate. We’ve learned how to test beliefs and choose the ones that are more likely to be true. This is how evolution and naturalism are fully compatible.
You are a dolt.
I don't think you quite understand. And I dont blame you. I just read his book on this, and its quiet a tough read.
If there's no conscious soul observing the results when you test your own material faculties using your own material faculties to test themselves, then your tests are unreliable.
Your tests are like using a yardstick to measure itself to determine whether it's an accurate yard or not -- it's a logical fallacy.
You don't get it. Naturalism is the belief only natural things exist (trees, rocks, etc.)
to believe in the Truth is to go beyond the natural world
to say I believe this is a true belief is to REJECT naturalism that's Alvin's point
I think by the way he is wrong but defining naturalism as equal to materialism means you CANNOT assume true or false beliefs exist because they are not IN the natural world
We’ve learned how to test beliefs and choose the ones that are more likely to be true. This is how evolution and naturalism are fully compatible.
LOL
No we haven't there is NO method to figure out what is a true or false belief all attempts (positivism, empiricism, etc.) have failed. Why we think x is false versus true is often a mixture of methods
there is no one way to determine truthhood so to claim x is true is just to assert something not prove it
He seems to use "beliefs" in a pure, mathematical, crisp (true/false; perhaps symbolic) sense, that are somehow superfluously generated by neurological processes with no connection to our actions (if these beliefs have no causative power for behavior, how can he speak about them using his mouth, which is a physical object?).
This is a very weird way of thinking. He seems to be a non-naturalist who cannot properly think as a naturalist when he tries, he only gets halfway there.
As a naturalist I don't think we have any such true/false beliefs unconnected to our actions. The brain works in a probabilistic-like way, by lots of heuristics and shortcuts. We know this (among others) from analyzing cognitive biases. And yes, I don't think my faculties are particularly reliable (see cognitive biases, optical illusions, forgetfulness etc.). It is an everyday experience to make mistakes in thinking and perception.
What you ironically failed to recognize by admitting “I don’t think my cognitive facilitates are reliable “ is by saying that, you compromise not only the list you mentioned: “cognitive biases, optical illusions, forgetfulness.” But also, any semblance of what would be considered truth.
If naturalism is true, then it is false. Here’s why:
If we are the products of biological evolution and social conditioning, there is no reason to think that our cognitive faculties which posit our conceptions about naturalism are true. Let’s assume for a moment that naturalism is true. We arose through a process of natural selection acting on incremental variations over time. Why would we ever think given this, that the universe could be understood? Or that we are the types of creatures capable of understanding it? Naturalism explains why would we create weapons to fend off prey, or to attract mates, but there is no evolutionary advantage to think about the structure of the universe.
Two points id like to make from this: the first Is, the fact the universe CAN be understood is an amazing thing in and of itself, but we are also the types of creature which are capable of understanding it... that is remarkable... and it only makes sense in a theistic worldview. Since theism says we are made in the image of God. Given that, we would expect the universe to be understandable, and we posses the facilities to understand it.
Rafal Omnom “If we assume naturalism, naturalism is by definition true.”
Naturalism: “The view that everything can be explained by natural processes and rejects supernatural explanations.“
P1 If we assume naturalism, naturalism is by definition true.
P2 We assume naturalism.
Therefore, naturalism is by definition true.
Fallacy:
(1) Circular reasoning. You assumed the validity of your conclusion by asserting its validity in your first statement.
“What you ironically failed to recognize is if our formation of beliefs was rooted in a perfect being who guaranteed our beliefs were true, we would expect most people to agree on what is true, and that is exactly what we don’t see.”
Fallacy:
Straw Man. I never said that our beliefs are rooted in a perfect being who guaranteed our beliefs were true. I said we are the types of creatures capable of understanding the universe. This requires two things:
(1) That we are capable of making reliable observations, thus, we must necessarily have reliable cognitive faculties. Since naturalism supposes that our cognitive faculties are the result of natural processes, we cannot say naturalism is true without affirming naturalism. Additionally, such a process only sorts through traits which aid in the survivability of the organism. That means what the organism happens to believe need not be “true” only necessary for survival. If what’s necessary for survival determines what is true, truth cannot be objectively discernible. If truth cannot be objectively discernible, naturalism cannot be objectively true.
(2) The universe is understandable. This is unprecedented. Why is it that gravity follows from a precise mathematical value, why is it that the initial conditions of the early universe were such that the existence of biological life could be made possible. these values which govern the constants and quantities of our universe needn’t be the values they are, in-fact, it’s more likely they wouldn’t have those precise values! Why do I say that? Take for instance the gravitational constant. If it’s value would have altered by 1x10^60, no stars, no galaxies could form. And that’s only one minor example among hundreds.
“You both show an excellent argument for naturalism and evolution... Since false beliefs can lead to survival... this is exactly what we see.”
No friend, you just didn’t understand the argument.
If naturalism posits that our beliefs need only be true insofar as our survivability is concerned, then we cannot rationally hold to the position naturalism is true. For a few reasons:
(1) Random mutations acting on natural selection would not produce faculties which can be relied upon. Who’s to say they are not still evolving and what we think is correct now, (like 2+2=4) is in fact wrong, and in a million years our faculties will evolve to the capacity to realize the absurdity of beliefs we think are true and binding right now.
(2) If you assume naturalism to explain that naturalism is true, you are exposing yourself to circular reasoning. You are using your faculties which came from processes explained in naturalism to show that naturalism is true. (Circular)
(3) If truth is determined by what is advantageous for survival, any belief, including the belief that truth is determined by what is advantageous for survival, cannot be rationally held to. If believing in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster aids in your survival, that belief is no more invalid than the belief naturalism is true. They become equally valid. But this means that nothing can be “objectively true”. Therefore it cannot be true that naturalism is true. #welcome to the irrational world of relativism.
“If theism is true, then it is false.”
How so? If God exists, he doesn’t exist? What evidence have you provided for that claim that can be objectively analyzed? I contend this:
P1: If it is possible a being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in some possible reality, then God exists in actual reality.
P2: It is possible a being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in some possible reality.
C: Therefore, God exists in actual reality.
V Sau I contend this:
P1: If it is possible that no beings which are maximally great can exist in any possible reality, then god cannot exist in any reality.
P2: It is possible that no beings which are maximally great can exist in any reality.
C: Therefore, god cannot exist in any reality.
Saying the brain works like x is at best an assumption not an argument. Also there are obvious counters - namely, how to distinguish true from false beliefs, true from false perceptions. The brain can be fooled, etc.
Chan Thorpe . Key to Plantinga’s argument is that there is no reliable method by which we can test the veridicality of our mental processes, because establishing such methods uses the very mental processes that we have yet to establish as veridical with reality.
If you evolve to believe/think "whatever you want" regardless of veracity, you become an easy meal. We descend from non-Plantinga Truth seekers. The Plantingas of the world stopped existing long ago.
Why is so common for theist to propose an argument against a non-theist position that, if it were valid, it would also apply equally to their position but they just hand wave it like it doesn't?
I think he is saying that the position is not valid, and would be invalid only by holding that evolution AND naturalism are simultaneously true. since theists don't hold those beliefs, i don't see how it would apply.
@@carlosg.oliver145 Plantinga's argument is based on the assumption that evolution produces false beliefs at least 50% of the time. When challenged on that assumption he just states that whatever you're using to reach that conclusion could be flawed and basically goes full solipsism. The idea that your senses and faculties could be unreliable is something that neither theism or any position truly solves.
@@pedrovillalobos6221 I don't think that is an accurate reading. He says that our best guess at the probability of a belief being true given evolution && naturalism (not just evolution) is 50% since we can't reliably choose whether it is true or untrue. He also doesn't assume that our cognitive faculties lead to false beliefs (hence you can't apply the same logic to the origins of his statement), he simply says that if you believe that cognitive faculties lead to true beliefs, then you cannot at the same time accept naturalism and evolution.
In other words, you can accept naturalism and evolution as long as you are willing to give up claims for the reliability of our cognitive faculties.
If I understand your point, you are saying that if the premise he is trying to disprove is indeed true, then his whole argument is also subject to the 50% problem?
If that's the case I think it's just a matter of choosing starting axioms. It seems that he has chosen to believe that our mental faculties are somehow directed at an objective reality. If we take that for granted, then his argument follows. But you're right, I don't think there is a rational way of proving that initial premise.
@@carlosg.oliver145 He says that if evolution is true we shouldn’t expect that our beliefs are true but rather that they are useful to survive. Later he says that it would be 50/50 without any justification. Then he implies that you need something other than naturalism to break that 50/50.
The problem is, when challenged about the 50% (9:45) he takes the solipsism route and makes it seem it doesn’t apply to his position.
There is another problem that I don’t see being brought up and that is that evolution doesn’t produce beliefs per se but rather mechanisms that do so.
Perfect point. It is special pleading. They always exclude themselves from this type of arguments.
He is really very intelligent. Fascinating...
Yeah but his EAAN is wrong.
In spite of the fact that the problem of evil and suffering remains for me an insuperable obstacle to faith in a good and loving God, it is precisely this argument (i.e., the logically self-defeating nature of naturalism) that prevents me from being an atheist.
You don't find the Free will defense to be sufficient?
The Loud Absence - Where is God in Suffering?
ruclips.net/video/MPm6Y-pANYI/видео.html
I still don't understand how naturalism is self-defeating(?)
What are you then? If you found his argument convincing I recommend looking at his arguments against the problem of evil.
Propositions can either be true or false, and no human being is omniscient. That's why the probability of any proposition being true on naturalism can never be higher than 50%.
God, conversely, is omniscient, and he reveals many facts to mankind, all of which are objectively 100% true.
Where does the speaker get the idea that survival and reproduction of an organism has much to do with “behavior”?
I don't see why Plantinga is so charitable with the beliefs being as likely to be true, as opposed to false. There's many more ways to be wrong than there is right.
That's why we had to invent science, and Plantinga totally ignores the role of science in correcting for deficiencies in our biologically evolved "common sense."
Tom Paine “common sense” I’ll take that to mean logical truths. But if logical truths are that which is in question, then this proposition becomes circular. How could biological evolution produce “common sense” as you say, as something reliable that could then be used to explain how we attained common sense? It assumes that the common sense we now have is reliable such that we are now able to understand reliably how we attained common sense. This is the very definition of circular reasoning.
Plantinga totally ignores the role science plays for correcting deficiencies in our biologically evolved common sense “
He certainly does not. The mistake you made here is assuming the truth of science to prove wether or not science is true. Again, this is circular. If our cognitive facilities are merely the products of biological evolution through the process of natural selection acting on random mutations, then there is no reason to think that such cognitive faculties are reliable. It first assumes that truth is objective and can be understood, then next, it assumes we are the types of creatures which are capable of understanding it. Why would we think that the universe could be understood or that we are the types of creatures to understand it? Given naturalism, there is no reason. If naturalism is true, then it’s false because there is no reason we should think it’s true because it assumes the reliability of our cognitive facilities, which supposedly came from naturalism. yet again, that would be circular reasoning.
@@snuzebuster We didn't "Invent" anything. Science is still limited by our perception of itself.
@@sashunkjs First, no, by common sense I don't mean logic. I mean something more like intuition, the way we find certain things to be true even though we cannot articulate a reason for believing them. Sure logical axioms are of this sort, but not every "self-evident" sort of belief is a logical axiom. It makes sense to think that the ability to use logic is conducive to survival and that our innate understanding of certain logical axioms is both evolved and reliable.
"The mistake you made here is assuming the truth of science to prove wether or not science is true."
Not sure where you're getting that from. First, I am not trying to prove science is true and secondly neither did I assume science is true. I agree that we have no reason to assume our cognitive faculties are reliable and they are not. We know that our cognitive faculties are somewhat reliable just from experience. We also know from experience that they are not totally reliable, and this is just what we should expect under naturalism because there is every reason to think that a certain degree of reliability is essential to survival.
It also makes sense that human beings would become aware of the fact that their cognitive faculties are not totally reliable and that they would invent tools like science to correct for deficiencies in their innate faculties. And, no, Plantinga does NOT take this into account in his EAAN. He just doesn't. If he does show me where.
So, no, there is nothing circular in my argument. My verbal reasoning skills test out at a couple of SDs above average. However, I certainly could have made a mistake. However, you've failed to show me any mistake that I've made.
@@ApozVideoz Well, yes, in fact, human beings DID invent the scientific method. And I don't know what you mean by "science is limited by our perception of itself" which isn't even a grammatically coherent sentence. I think i know what you mean and I have and would never argue that there are no limits to science, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Uhmm .... I really don't know what to make of this, but here's my gut's refutation. Evolution does indeed only care about survivability and reproduction, but evolution also evolved theories (in minds like ours) to care about truth. And it just so happens that caring about truth in the context of theories led to a big plus up in our survivability/comfort, so we are continually trying to enhance said theories, and it just so happens that those efforts are also paying off. I just don't see any contradiction between evolution and naturalism as stated, but this may be a definitional problem (e.g., to my mind naturalism is closer to theism than atheism, but not in his).
The thing is that you would not be able to trust your «truth» inside tour mind.
When you say we evolved to care about truth we cant know if that is only true inside our mind or objectively.
The point is our cognitive faculties evolve for surviveability not truth.
When you say we evolved to care about truth you are making a truth statement.
@@sak415 _"The thing is that you would not be able to trust your «truth» inside tour mind."_
*We can and we do. What you should have stated was that we SHOULD NOT trust, not that we "would not be ABLE to".*
*Every organism with cognitive faculties WILL trust their cognitive faculties, irrespective of their reliability because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE NOT TO!!*
*Try thinking about what it would look like to not rely on your faculties. I can't even conceive how to do it! Even if you believed your faculties were unreliable, you're relying on your faculties to come to that belief. Even the insane guy down the street has to rely on his faculties. Again, he has no choice.*
*I'm going to rely on my visual faculty, regardless of it's reliability because I have no other option. What I see is going to get processed in my brain and I am going to react to that input. I have NO CHOICE NOT TO!!*
@@AsixA6 on naturalism there is no free will anyway, but on theism you in fact can choose to ignore what your senses tells you about reality.
I can easily walk out on the road thinking the cars are just a product of my imagination.
Then proceed to act as if that were true.
In fact on naturalism i see no good reason not to doubt just the example i gave.
@@sak415 You need to stop with this “on theism” stupidity. Again, according to the EAAN, if naturalism is true, belief that you have free will, that naturalism is false and that theism is true, are irrational.
@@AsixA6 i 100% agree.
The point of the argument is to show naturalism is not true.
To say you cant know truth is self defeating.
50-50% seems rather high. It supposes already the faculty that you can make truthfull oppositions.
Doesn't this argument apply to any origin story? If we were designed then we could just be believing what we were designed to believe, not necessarily what's true. So we still have no reason to believe that our reasoning leads to truth.
If our cognitive faculties were unreliable we would not survive in reality. Beliefs are a subset of internal dialogue. Internal dialogue (and language) evolved along with prefrontal cortex development in response to interactive social pressures between humans.
Correct. Beliefs would correlate with fitness. But not necessarily with truth. That is Plantingas point.
Animal behavior does not necessarily align with the truth of a belief if that belief is neither advantageous or deleterious. Beliefs that comport with reality are generally more advantageous when solving problems however.
Humans have a transcendent conduit between the 'here and now' (reality) and the 'there and then' (imagination) that helps them posit novel solutions to problems before committing to them. That positing and question asking, or internal dialogue can be construed as between two distinct entities so we could expect many to believe that conversation is between self and an agent.
In addition, when the 'there and then' is leveraged to provide emotional comfort to assuage discomfort in the 'here and now', it is emotionally desirous to covet that transcendent comfort and as such is ubiquitous throughout the ages of all humans where language is used, and why we have an affinity for myth making, lore and gods. This is the crux of debate between the atheist and theist because the atheist does not affix agency to the 'then and there'. For them, it is a simply a cognitive work bench where desires can modeled in their heads and if they comport with physical laws, they may be brought back to act out in reality as truth.
Your argument is circular. According to evolutionary theory, nothing evolves in response to anything. Evolution is a happy accident. So it follows that whatever reliability our perceptions might have would also be a happy accident. Suggesting our perceptions are true, is like suggesting our feet are true. Plantinga doesn't argue our perceptions and beliefs aren't reliable, he argues under naturalism, there is little reason to believe they ought to be reliable for anything other than fitness. . And the only means we have of testing this, those very faculties, can't be assumed to be reliable. It's like having someone who thinks 2+2=5 check your math homework.
Dare I say your perception of evolution 'not responding to anything' is fallacious. Evolution is the name we have prescribed to a process of change through time based on genetic mutation, environmental pressure and the 'luck' of the amalgamation of those influences that are either beneficial or deleterious to the species when it comes to adaptation. No plan, no design required.
Further, theists consciously or sub consciously conflate conception with perception, insert it in the fabric of reality through scriptures and then prescribe the manifestation to gods. Insert one piece of fiction in a non fictional book, and you have a novel, though entertaining, it is a flawed reflection of reality.
In the context in which you used the word, I disagree. A mutation doesn't respond to anything. The environment provides the response, not the other way around. Fitness is in response to the mutation. Likewise our beliefs don't respond to the environment. In order for something be selected it has to already exist. Selection is the response. The environment does the selecting, not our brains or neuro structure.
The problem is that beliefs affect behaviour and emotions, though, so natural selection would select brains that lead to beliefs that lead to behaviours that lead to greater survivability.
As for the logic choppy route of proving your cognitive faculties with cognitive faculties. Well, you can't justify your reasoning with your reasoning anyway, whether naturalism is true, or not. If you reason that your reasoning came from God, then that's just circular, too. You have to assume that your reasoning came from a place that makes it reliable, in order to trust the reliability of your reason to reason that it came from somewhere that makes it reliable... in order to justify reasoning...
We are stuck.
I love your name : Yes on the end yes we can not be sure that faculties given by god can be trusted. I could even see why he should have reasons to limit our mental faculties, if we have evil in us. However as others have pointed out there is some scientist called Hoffmann that mathematically proofed that evolution can not developed an understanding of truth so Platingas claim is sort of mathematically verified today: ruclips.net/video/oYp5XuGYqqY/видео.html The video is extremely funny and entertaining by the way. The main problem is: why should natural selection create consciousness if anything that can be done by a human can be done by a robot/philosophical zombie too? Watch google car and you see what I mean.
@@cutecats1368 Which do you think would be more beneficial to survival, reliable or unreliable cognitive faculties?
Plantinga's claim is idiotic.
@@AsixA6 man their comment was deleted and so were quite a few in this comment section. I'm really curious why
I read some of the condensed critiques of this argument om Wikipedia and the all boil down to "if 90 percent of our believes are correct why shouldn't the rest be". If Evolution is right this belives where trained against things that happen DURING live. What happens before and after can neither be learned nor trained that way, so our success rate on solving trainable problems gives us zero indication on how good our mind would be on untrainable problems (where untrainable problems are those that have no effect on our physical survivable).
There is no training in Evolution. Among a litter of dogs, one puppy can be born brave and some other afraid of everything, just because of their chemistry caused by mutations.
The one that's afraid may be pushed away and never have children, and the brave one may have many. The mutations of the latter dog will continue in his offspring, and the mutations of the former one will be lost.
I believe Plantinga is arguing against the problems of materialistic assumptions. I´ll have to watch it again. His use of hypothetical surrealism makes some sense in that respect. However, it is in addressing the relevance of developments like Unitarian Universalism, an interfaith association that was created by two progressive Christian denominations to overcome doctrinal hypocrisies, that "cognitive functioning in service of true beliefs" can be examined fruitfully. In addition, Matt Fox the former Dominican priest and his transition after being ex-communicated to joining the Episcopalians and then calling himself a post-denominational priest, offers cutting issues of importance. Fox is extremely concerned about sustainability, for example, and interested in interfaith spiritual practice. Karen Armstrong, too.
My ability to cross the street safely is evidence that my beliefs are at least mostly reliable. In this situation, untrue beliefs about how cars behave would be selected against in a very dramatic fashion.
Hmmm, I think you make Plantinga's point. You believe that being careful about cars is wise because it is helpful in keeping you from dying; it serves Evolution. Seems to me that you should choose a different example.
@@videos_iwonderwhy That's not what I meant. My continued ability to cross the street safely is direct evidence that my model of how cars behave, based on my senses, is in fact reliable. I don't just "believe" that my senses are helpful, I've repeatedly demonstrated it.
No, I’d disagree, take for example the belief that, instead of cars being on the ground driving at a certain speed, you have the belief that a car is flying in the air a bit above the ground, or that the car is spinning around in 360s across the street, basically his point is that any belief that gets you to have a certain behavior, not run into a car and die, would be perfectly fine as long as you behave in a certain way that doesn’t get you killed. And with the nearly infinite amount of beliefs you could have that doesn’t get you killed by a car, why believe we would have the right one?
@@Freebase. "take for example the belief that, instead of cars being on the ground driving at a certain speed, you have the belief that a car is flying in the air a bit above the ground, or that the car is spinning around in 360s across the street"
I love how people who believe the EAAN always come up with the most absurd examples to try to prove their point. If you have the kind of cognitive distortion that causes you to believe a car is flying off the ground, *you probably wouldn't have even made it to the sidewalk.*
And if this were the rule rather than the exception, there wouldn't *be* cars and sidewalks.
@@osmosis321 They seem to genuinely believe the theory of evolution states that all beliefs are individually adapted.
He’s close to the presupp position lol he just doesn’t go all the way
presupp for the most part is idiotic outside of the transcedental argument because for one reason to presupp god actually creates a million presupps for a being that great. Like how is he all good etc.
@@anglozombie2485 what’s the difference between presup and transendental?
@@WakeRunSleep Presupposition in a theory in philosophy of language/pragmatics, and transcendental means that there is something more than the natural world
@@kawaii_hawaii222 thanks
It seems to me the crux of the argument is whether epiphenomenalism follows from materialism. If there is some way beliefs can have causal influence over our behavior by virtue of their semantic content, then his argument wouldn't be sound. But if our beliefs play no causal roll in bringing about our behavior, then Plantinga's argument is sound.
As an athiest I say Alvin may have hit on something here. It all depends on what he means by his by 'actual truth'. So what could he mean by that? One thing is absolute truth; and absolute truth about all things. Is that what evolution requires of intelligence for intelligence to be an effective evolutionary tool? No, it just requires a little more ampliative truth than the competitor. But now does the naturalist have to give up the assumption that absolute truth is attainable? Yes, it does. But that was never an ideal of naturalism to begin with. So my take is 'actual truth', as he used it here, is a fudge word. He means it to mean '(just) truth' , and at the same time 'absolute truth'.
I don’t feel professor Plantinga explained (towards the end), the problem presented, of not being able to trust our faculties, where one can test things. So, if we build a thermometer and rely upon it to test things, like water in a bath before entering it, and it is always right, then I see this (and the ability to build and the imagination to test it) as a strain of logic, knowing that it is not the result of random or uncertain faculties. But I may have misunderstood or be thinking too shallow.
No, you nailed it.
We rtely upon interpretation of feedback to live. He is ignoring this.
I think if our faculties is not realible, maybe we can see illusion whole time, maybe the real world is cannot be known, because our mind deceive us, or?
@@Dr-Curious He didn't nail anything. Testing it is also going to be done using the faculties that you cannot trust in the first place. You're going to find that "it is always right"using the very faculties that Platinga shows you cannot know if they're deceiving you or not.
@@suntzu7727 You cannot know, yet 100% of testing and the subsequent observation (finding the water also feels comfortable when indicated) is enough reliability for us humans to live by. When unreliability is ridiculously insignificant, we ignore it.
@@Dr-Curious You keep missing the point, the "testing " is done and perceived and interpreted by the same faculties you cannot trust in the first place. If they are not reliable, none of the observations made using them are.
This argument is bad. We have lots of empirical evidence for unguided evolution, and the idea that our faculties are reliable is part of common sense. Should we reject either of these very plausible claims on the basis of Plantinga's a priori imaginations about how the evolutionary process works? No. Just as GE Moore was justified in rejecting any philosophical argument for skepticism in favor common sense, we ought to reject Plantinga's non-empirical conjecture that evolution likely produced unreliable faculties in favor of the two well-supported claims mentioned above.
I can tell from your comment that you're not a believer. I don't see his argument as " A very analytical and ironclad argument " either . I guess one has to be a believer to see it that way. So we are left with a few choices :
1. Accept his claim that he is right and everyone else is wrong based on the idea that religious believes must be right since they are generated not by mental faculties (which are unreliable) but by the soul , which is god given and reliable .
Hard to say what happens when the religious believes have nothing to do with the Judaeo - Christian god . Most likely he will claim that those believes are generated by the faulty, unreliable mental faculties but I'm not 100% on that.
2.Admit that our senses and our intellect plays tricks on us every now and then , that some things are not very intuitive or simply counter intuitive,
that it is very unlikely to ever achieve a state of perfect and total comprehension given a limited intellect and based on skepticism and common sense as you mentioned, reject the preposition that religious believes didn't evolve but were planted in each one of us by a deity of some sort.
3.Consider at least a theoretical possibility that not all naturalists are materialists as well , that the idea of a consciousness isn't as far fetched as religion would make us believe and that the god of the bible , is simply a cover for all kinds of ugly stuff from rape to genocide .
There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic other than the fact one cannot be a skeptic and a believer at the same time.
Dubito ergo cogito , cogito ergo sum - I doubt therefore I think , I think therefore I am said Descartes . Some like to translate it into " I exist because god created me" . Whatever makes them happy.
He's contradicting the reliability of empiricism itself
At 5:40 in this video he makes a mistake. You must assume that true beliefs are equi-likely to false beliefs, or all beliefs are equi-likely. Take a cigar box and shake a bunch of cylinders painted red on one side and white on the other and you get 50-50 red aligning with red. Magnetize the red poles positive and you get a completely different alignment. The nature of the brain may be to create experiences that are valid, and, in some cases, create an experience a decision has been made. The real argument is that then experiencing and willing are superfluous so why create them if they pose no survival advantage. That works it it is possible to organize a brain with no cognitive or willing experiencing. If it is not - a no zombie hypothesis - then those mechanical functions necessarily will “carry” the experiencing that is logically unnecessary but physically required. There is no other way to assemble the surviving structure.
So what, behaviour is independent from beliefs?
Not always , but sometimes it is.
@@agrv311 well how often then? Otherwise this is just a shot in the dark
@@cemrecevikoz Often true beliefs lead us to survival, but for example philosophy and logic are not very important for survival and natural selection. So I think this argument sounds.
@@agrv311 the argument that believing in one makes believing in the other at the same time irrational does not follow I believe.
Regarding conscious states (e.g. colour-qualia), naturalism requires that they are reducible to neuro-physiological states. There is nothing else for them to be. And then, if that is the case, we could postulate that conscious states are a cheap and effective option for survival and reproduction. Unfortunately, this reductionist position has yet to be substantiated, so the argument becomes circular. Consciousness is reducible to neurophysiology, because reductive naturalism is true, and the latter is true because there is no reason to doubt it (in this case because consciousness presents no problem for it). But as yet we have not demonstrated that reductive naturalism works for consciousness, so we are back where we started. It's a question-begging exercise.
All you've said is that there is as of yet no naturalistic explanation of conscious awareness. That does not mean it is not a natural phenomenon. My belief is that both matter and mind derive from a deeper neutral level, i.e., one that is neither itself matter nor mind, but gives rise to both. I have no problem if someone wants to call that God, but I prefer to call it Nature because the term "God" comes with lots of nasty revealed religious baggage. I'm more a panentheist than atheist, but I still consider myself a Naturalist.
@@snuzebuster would you consider yourself a substance dualist when it comes to the mind? That’s what it seemed like you were describing.
@@mr.starfish4965 Hmmmm. I don't think so. But, actually I haven't been thinking about this kind of stuff much recently, so I'm not sure I can give an answer without thinking about it for a while. Good question though.
So thoroughly uninteresting to hear Plantinga try to speak sensibly and fail in roughly the same way every time. I can’t even tell if he actually thinks this is a good argument, or if he’s just saying it to fill the air time.
@@eduar2971 with pleasure. Please tell me which aspects of this argument have convinced you of what claims, and then I’ll tell you whether i think that is invalid or unsound, and why.
@@eduar2971 Okay, yeah. Philosophers use reasoning to determine truth, and are the ones most subject to the flaw you mention, because there’s rarely an objective test to term them if they’re wrong. Scientists use observation and peer review combined with strict falsifiability to make sure that if their predictions are wrong, they can damn well know about it. Religious people are generally the ones who insist that they have absolute knowledge of something, with that thing usually being the existence of and some of the properties of their god. Scientists work from the presumption that there may be some repeatability to nature that can be studied. Sometimes they find the repeatability, sometimes they don’t. But there’s no presupposing that any of this is rational, whatever that means.
@@eduar2971 And I don’t see how Naturalism plays into this at all. It’s like you’re saying that if naturalism is false, then we have to believe that a human mind should be a truth-generating machine. And I don’t think you believe that. So what is the relevance of naturalism? How would we know if naturalism is true or false?
@@eduar2971 “Well, I didn’t say that Naturalism is false.” If you’re a theist, you are asserting that Naturalism is false, I’m pretty sure. I don’t care if you actually SAID it, since I’m fairly certain it is a position that you hold. If you want to rescind any and all claims about a god existing, then I’ll believe you might not be an anti-naturalist.
And we are very well aware that our brains aren’t truth-identifying machines. The fact that Isaac Newton, probably the single best human ever at seeking truth, was still wrong about physics, demonstrates that. And every other human was worse at it than him. Nobody that I’m aware of has ever asserted that humans have a direct pipeline to truth, except perhaps theists making claims about the existence of their god. But the fact that humans disagree about these gods proves that these claims can’t all be correct.
As for understanding Naturalism as a belief or philosophical position, kinda. It is like atheism- it is a non-claim, and is the proper default starting position for honest inquiry, since we know that natural things exist, and that non-natural things have yet to be demonstrated. It would be up to other people (presumably anti-naturalists) to find some phenomenon that they think is not natural, and then demonstrate that it is indeed not natural. So if you’ve got something that you think falls in this category, feel free to enlighten me.
But don't beliefes follow the natural selection alghorhytms as well? Effective believes life with it's carriers and weak die. We can see that with Christianity, for example, compared to other, local and small religions.
Also, can't "wrong" belief be just a maladaptive variation just like maladative feautures in species? (Short giraffes, for example). These speceis don't procreate, just like people with weak beliefs, e.g. nihilism.
And isn't searching for the right belief an evolutionary mechanism? It is this search that led to the development of technologies and thriving of our species.
Thanks for replies.
How would animals have beliefs
@@AwesomeWrench they don't have a conscience like us
@@AwesomeWrench evolution?
Some might, though quite different. Dolphins, elephants, whales..?@@silentghost751
When you look at the success of a religion you cannot isolate that from the success of the culture. Christianity piggybacked on late antiquity of Roman culture. Religions select from myth plots and characters that make sense to human psychology. It should be possible to create more and less satisfactory myths and religions, and it their syncretic development, as they borrow, religionist myths should improve through the winnowing processes of oral traditional storytelling. But I don’t think you can say that the historically more successful religions were better fitted for survival than the less successful: too many other factors in,play.
I might be a naturalist.
prime example of talking a lot without saying much of value.
More like you’re too lazy and slow to keep up, do try. If you care about the nature of truth and objective reality as we know it, this argument cuts right at the very crux of these.
Prime example of someone accusing someone else of talking a lot without saying much of value without really understanding what the other person is talking about that doesn't say much of value🤣😂🤣
The earliest refutation of this argument was in 1997 (I'm sure there's earlier ones) and the new incarnation of the EAAN was refuted in 2011.
@@fgc_rewind False. Sober, Fitelson, and Pigliucci's refutation focus on Plantinga's errors, assertions, and misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
What's your source for your claim?
If you can't explain the refutation in your own words you probably did not understand it well. If you did not understand it well it could be false.
Abraham Lincoln had a beard but no moustache
34k views, 750 likes! 🤔🤔
That's not unusual.
It's a cheap trick. Just because our cognitive faculties aren't always reliable that doesn't mean our beliefs are necessarily false. So, you can still hold beliefs about reality that are true.
The point is that if naturalism is true we cannot know if a belief is true. Why? Because the only method and source of knowledge is the determined brain. And a determined brain cannot have knowledge. Example: A computer is determined to give the result 2+2=4. But the computer cannot know if this result is true.
@@MidiwaveProductions Plantinga has never demonstrated that to be true. He simply assimes it.
@@MidiwaveProductions If Christianity is true we cannot know if a belief is true. Why? Because the only method and source of knowledge is the immaterial mind. And an immaterial mind cannot have knowledge.
See how useless this argument is?
His argument doesn’t rely on the claim that our beliefs are false.
By accident. That is what Platinga said.
"... the probability of reliability of ..." - Does anyone else find his way of presenting the question deceitful ?
Are we supposed to ignore that religious beliefs are not the product the neurology of religious people but rather a product of indoctrination ?
All religious leaders have one thing in common and it is not the belief in the same god, but rather the desire of power and control over other people.
I wonder when is he going to touch that subject (if ever).
Yes but according to naturalism, your belief that religious beliefs are a product of indoctrination are themselves a product of neurology, and therefore we can never know whether you are right. That is his point. On materialistic naturalism you were always bound to post that comment, and religious people were always bound to believe what they do, and therefore we cannot hold them responsible because their beliefs are just a byproduct of their neurology. We can therefore know nothing. EVER. including that religious people want power and control.
@César Rabbit Well , many people will argue that the idea of god /religious beliefs is produced by the brain, therefore => neurology.
That would clearly be based on the assumption that the mind and the brain are the same, which is arguable to say the least. It seems to me that the religious beliefs started as mere observation of human behavior . The unknown , among other circumstances , has this tendency to trigger fear in some people while not in other . The possibility to exploit that fear was and still is obvious. That's why for example pedophile priest are not afraid of hell but have no problem whatsoever to live a comfortable life at the expense of the more naive and/or simple minded who they manage to brainwash into submission mostly by cultivating an attitude of fear (of eternal punishment or whatever)..
You're also right about the way he presents probabilities . Yet, no matter how hard he laughs at the idea that the position of a naturalist has to be 100% skepticism , that is the honest way to go and I see it as much more logical and reasonable than to claim to know stuff about supernatural entities and imaginary friends. I admit that it takes sometimes hundreds of years before a scientific model is proven wrong and therefore replaced with a better one (Newton - Einstein) but I say it is much better to admit when you're wrong than to dismiss evidence in favor of beliefs.
@César Rabbit Thanks. Have a great weekend
Vagabond_Shadow
you’re going to have to actually give a reason for thinking that his presentation is deceitful.
And what are we ignoring? That religious belief is the product of indoctrination? What do you define as indoctrination? If someone comes to a religious belief based upon their own intuitive sense of reason is that to be considered indoctrination? And what of the naturalist? Where does she get her quasi-religious beliefs from? Probably from the high-priests of our culture who are of the same mind.
You also make mention of how a naturalist should logically commit to radical skepticism. This is laughable as it seems that you are relying upon your sense of reason, yet skeptical naturalism is the very thing that should undermine you reliance on this sense. You can’t psychoanalyze the religious using your sense of intuition while simultaneously claiming 100% skepticism.
All of this is just plain evidence that you didn’t understand what Plantinga was getting across.
@@davidwaters2601 - [...] you’re going to have to actually give a reason for thinking that his presentation is deceitful [...]
First thing on the list would be talking about god as if there was a single meaning to that word and thus creating the opportunity to later on switch/replace the vague meaning of the word with the Judaeo Christian god . Not a new tactic by the way.
Second on my list of personal opinions is the way he suggests that atheism is simply not believing in god . Which god ? His god ?
You're telling me that you don't see how one can believe in a god and having a complete atheistic attitude towards other gods ?
Third on my list is the he is presenting as a fact that "... those people are wrong..." and he is obviously right . In my book that attitude is nothing more than arrogance , on the same shelf with those who claim to understand the mind of a supernatural deity, omniscience , etc.
The truth is that uncertainty is woven in the fabric of existence whether we accept it or not . People who claim to "know" or to be 100% right , they must certainly have an agenda.
Fourth . One doesn't have to be a materialist in order to be a naturalist . He actually uses the word "probably" , only to switch straight away to naturalist *and* materialist creatures.
Fifth. What does he mean by "belief" ? Is it like a magical thing planted by a god in every human being or is it just accepting something as being true without evidence ?
*And what are we ignoring? That religious belief is the product of indoctrination? What do you define as indoctrination?* -
He is completely ignoring the evolution of religious beliefs . The fear some people had since the beginning of times , the fear of predators, forces of nature, etc., was always a fertile ground for those who were instinctively less afraid and would take advantage of others.
* If someone comes to a religious belief based upon their own intuitive sense of reason is that to be considered indoctrination?* - Yes .
That someone would believe in unicorns, bulls, trees and whatever other imaginary creatures if the "god" idea wouldn't have been developed and refined over thousands of years based on observation of what works and what doesn't work when one tries to control other people's minds.
*You can’t psychoanalyze the religious using your sense of intuition while simultaneously claiming 100% skepticism.*
Correct , you can't claim 100% skepticism. Dubito ergo cogito. Cogito ergo sum. Do you require any proof for the fact that you exist ?
I don't . No matter how skeptic one is , some things just don't require proof.
The cognitive faculties of a naturalist materialistic person have a low reliability ? As opposed to what ? A religious believer ?
What is *"the right behavior"* ? Is trying to please an imaginary deity "the right behavior" ? Is there a world wide accepted standard of right behavior ?
*We all assume that our cognitive abilities are reliable* - I thought that the reliability of our senses isn't up for debate anymore.
Are we ALL really assume that ?
He ill defines the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism, and his argument doesn't take into account methodological naturalism which doesn't make a truth claim.
But he does, naturalism as a philosophy (which predates methodological naturalism in terms of terminology) is very much atheistic. Methodological naturalism is a train of thought of that philosophy and needs therefore to be called by its full name. But like you said it doesn't try to answer wether God exist or not and is therefore agnostic.
@@peterpapai8702 He neither defines nor contrasts it well with metaphysical naturalism, he uses a deity as if it were synonymous with supernaturalism. As for methodological naturalism, that's just a working assumption without a truth claim which was pointed out by Sober's and Fitelson's refutation.
@@CesarClouds though why should he define a train of thought he is not talking about? I understand that some might be confused by the name similarity, so that might be the reason
@@peterpapai8702 Because it renders his argument stillborn.
@@CesarClouds I simply don't understand. If you search naturalism you: a. Naturalism in art and literature as a way to say that even to the detail it looks realistic, b. A philosophical belief that everything comes from nature and doesn't need supernatural forces to exist. If people in literature refer to methodological naturalism, they always put methodological in front of it.
Furthermore he (that guy in the video) claims that naturalism is even more fargoing than atheism therefore he could not be talking about methodological naturalism.
So is morality a belief? (Every people nation, ancient and new, has an inherent moral code) And if so, is it correct? What good does it accomplish? If it is “correct,” it is a standard, not an adaptation. Adaptations are not actual changes in a species (See the work of WE Loeing on Galapagos Finches)
One works toward a standard and this would be deliberate action.
That deliberate action reinforces the standard, or code.
Where did the code originate and more importantly, why?
Survival of the “fittest” cannot explain this, morally.
Morality is always the issue...where did it come from.
Mans morality is good for civilization yet it is declining, along with man, not improving. Why? Is the morality incorrect in the last 100 years all of a sudden?
What is “good” and who said so? Why? It matters greatly whether a belief is true or not.
It reminds me of a child that is raised in a good home, leaves the “teaching” of his family of origin and then later congratulates himself for his good character after his “personal enlightenment”
The foundation certainly must receive a chunk of the credit. The nebulous “creative force “ gets no credit though everything in the universe has come from “that progenitor” And always “why...?”
We can't believe in objective morals without believing in God.
😂 Es asombroso hasta dónde pueden llegar, aquellos que permanecieron adoctrinados para creer en seres invisibles con poderes mágicos, con tal de racionalizar sus creencias siendo adultos.
Make a counter argument or be quite
@@jasonsimms4238 The point has been made and the fact that you feel compelled to make that comment in precisely those terms shows that I hit the nail on the head.
It is amazing how far, those who remained indoctrinated to believe in invisible beings with magical powers, can go to rationalize their beliefs as adults.
Neurology causes "beliefs", beliefs cause action. If the action is not adaptive, the neurology changes and therefore so do the beliefs, which now cause action which is adaptive. That is why evolution leads to "true" beliefs. Instead of the term "beliefs", he should work with "imagination". We can and do imagine scenarios that do not conform to reality. When we act on these and disadvantage results, we begin to recognize when our imagination conforms to reality and when it does not, and we become better at imagining and acting on scenarios that work. This guy should look at (computer) neural nets. There is a training phase (adaptation), and a predictive phase where the net passes data through the trained network. "Beliefs", or better "imagination" is the mental passing of data through the (trained) neurology to see what results.
Thank you for your completely clueless comment.
@@TBOTSS Wow, you react to a very informed and cogent point by calling it "clueless." The word "ignoramus" comes to mind.
It has been disproven mathematically that evolution can lead to true believes: ruclips.net/video/oYp5XuGYqqY/видео.html
I think the problem with this argument is that it runs on the level of beliefs (which are emergent conclusions that go back to the premises of the rational agent themself) ... evolution is about fitness as Plantinga said, but let's not forget that most adaptation goes hand in hand with logic ... I find it hard to believe that failing to use logic (for instance : that since the predator is not behind this tree, then it must be behind that tree ... and it cannot be behind both trees at the same time) goes against fitness... because logic is like a template on which reality operates, at least most of our mental faculties must have some kind of a logical blueprint, even robots need a logical circuit to navigate the world properly ...
Beliefs do not operate on this deeper level, they operate on a yet higher level of abstraction, they are merely conclusions or results of logical thinking. And this process of logical thinking (arguments) needs premises to work, that's why conclusions are different among different rational agents ... and these premises are highly influenced by our judgments and emotions, although the logical blueprint might be the same.
So, logic itself is reliable to a great extent, what is not very reliable is our beliefs, which are not only a result of our logical arguments, but also of our premises that we feed into these arguments, which themselves are under the influence of our judgments and emotions. That's why there is something we call : The Scientific Method, and Inductive reasoning : Because we cannot find the truth about the world just by thinking, we need to check the world itself and compare the results of our deductive thinking to our empirical or observational results ... and that's already what the scientific community does.
On the other hand, naturalism is saved because it is totally conceivable to make a computer that runs on logical circuits that themselves work according to the principles of logic and mathematics : ~(P & ~P) for instance, and still use these principles of logic to print the opposite on the screen : (P & ~P) ... because the principles work on a lower level of abstraction compared to the screen itself, because what you see on the screen ( i.e beliefs) is just an emergent phenomenon ... It's like using tiny "No"s to constract a "Yes".
This is such a ridiculous argument.
It’s like arguing “how could evolution explain birds having wings?” The behavior of flapping is all that matters. I don’t see the relevance of birds actually having wings.
For anyone objecting.
1. From an evolutionary point of view it does not matter whether our beliefs are true or false as long as they lead to adaptive behavior.
2. If 1 then our cognitive faculties are not a reliable enough belief forming process to generate evolution (or really any belief).
Ect.
2 is incorrect. For 2 to be correct you’d have to say: from an evolutionary perspective it does not matter whether or not our beliefs are true. Which appears to be obviously false.
I see no difficulty in believing that a cognitive faculty produced by evolution, I.e. designed to produce beliefs that keeping us alive in a complicated world across generations and reproducing with other humans with different brains and then rising those humans to survive, is at least concerned enough about the truth that it is capable of producing true beliefs when exercised correctly. Evolutionary theory is an example of a product of our cognitive faculties that was implemented such that it produced true belief (read: rigorously, carefully and laboriously).
Don't know much about history. Don't know much biology. Don't know much about science books. Don't know much about the French I took. But this argument seems pretty good.
lol
It has been refuted several times.
@@undefeateddebater9438 But it's not going away. It is like whack-a-mole.
@@jasonparker6138 I agree, there are still flat earthers.
@@undefeateddebater9438 I think several of the ingredients of a good refutation already appear in this paper, Real Patterns:
ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/FP2012/FP2012_readings/Dennett_RealPatterns.pdf
which predates the EAAN by a couple of years.
Good video!
That's why we conduct experiments. So our preconceived beliefs don't influence our conclusions
Nietzsche takes it to the next level . That evolution is a universal acid that eats through all our beliefs... even the scientific method. He elaborates in the gay science
@weezy894 If you ask all living people a thousand years ago if they believe that their ancestors looked like mice, then 100% would tell you that they don't believe it. Our belief system produces way less than 50\50 accuracy. But experiments we conduct on evidence we dig up prove otherwise.
This man makes a great case why beliefs are irrelevant to establish truth
I love how Professor CP have you atheist shook in the comment section lol Glory 2 God
"You can't really give an argument for your cognitive faculties being reliable because you'll already be presupposing their reliability in order to give the argument"
Same goes for the self authenticating infallibility of scripture, kiddo
not true: because according to scripture Jesus rose from the dead to prove the validity of scripture and we have many documents to prove it. Jesus spoke about the scriptures speaking of them as authorative as well as prophecying his own rising from the dead. This is enough evidence we need. This is why Pilate asked "what is truth". We even have the pilate stone. Jesus's rising from the dead ties in with history so well that we have to give the percentage of christianity being true much higher than evolution.
There is a common conception that Christians believe the Bible is true only “because the Bible says so.” I don’t know why, because (almost) no Christians take it seriously because it’s an obviously bad argument. Plantiga certainly isn’t arguing for that here.
Some of the reasons theologians believe the New Testament is credible are because
-it’s eyewitness historical testimony
-the Bible itself is written by several sources (Paul, Jesus’ original Apostles, Mark, Luke) in agreement with one another
-the historical narrative is confirmed by independent authors like Josephus, Tacitus, and others
-it accurately refers to archeologically confirmed places and events
-the New Testament is founded in the belief in the resurrection of Christ, which is supported by
1) the empty tomb; the recovery of Jesus’ body would have easily falsified the stories of the resurrection (putting an end to Christianity), but even the early opposition to Christianity never showed that Jesus’ body remained in the tomb.
2) the 11 Apostles’ testimony that they had personally witnessed Christ’s resurrection (all 12 except Judas Iscariot), for which 10 of them were persecuted to death.
@@masterchief3007 brill... and to add to those brilliant points: the fact that Jesus' death has been recorded in roman history when they weren't ''christians'' or jews! The romans put Jesus in a tomb with a massive boulder in front of it with two roman soldiers to guard his tomb bcoz the jews were scared his disciples would steal his body and claim he rose from the dead.. when Jesus actually did rise from the dead there were over 500 eye witnesses.... I think the question people should be asking is not if Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead... the question people should be asking is WHY he died on the cross and rose from the dead! Jesus' life is a part of history (and present - if you know you know:) ). To deny Jesus lived is like denying Julius Caesar lived, as there's even more written evidence for Christ
@@lawdamercy2078 There is proof of his existence, but not proof of any of the supernatural claims. There are no third party witness testimonies of Jesus performing miracles or rising from the dead. Everything comes from Jesus's followers.
@@masterchief3007 The Apostles were, for all intents and purposes, a cult. They gave the only supposed eyewitness testimonies of supsernatural events occurring. Not only that, but they make claims that violate the laws of physics, which would imply a lack of physical laws in the first place!
Plantinga is a highly intelligent man who wants to believe in the god-hypothesis and so devises clever arguments that he thinks justifies his belief in god.
You're more than welcome to demonstrate where and in what way his arguments fails or is fallacious. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath awaiting your response.
@@stevenhunter3345 you can exhale now. In this video Plantinga develops a convoluted argument against the premise of naturalism that does not force the conclusion that he arrives at. Plantinga says if neurology is responsible for our beliefs, and since those beliefs have a high probability of being wrong, then our beliefs about naturalism and evolution have a high probability of being wrong also.
Naturalism is the philosophy that says the world works by natural material principles. That everything about the world that we live in is governed by and can be explained by quantum physics without the need to resort to non-material entities. Where I think Plantinga errs in his discourse is to confuse human instinct and our natural propensity for irrational thinking with scientifically derived ideas. The principles of quantum physics are not the result of irrational thought or intuition nor are they just simple beliefs. It is not simple belief or instinct that has allowed humans to send a spacecraft into space to rendezvous with a meteor, take samples from it, and return to earth. It is not simple instinctual beliefs that allow a cardiac surgeon to stop someone's heart, keep blood circulating to the brain, while the heart is removed and replaced by a pump or another heart.
So Plantinga treats the ideas of evolution, naturalism, and materialism as if they are the simple products of an untrustworthy instinct.
@@stevenhunter3345 so what is your reply to this very logical and well constructed reply or are you still holding your breath. Hehe
@Jem R You've got to be kidding. He hit then nail on the head. Yes, we agree with Plantinga that our biologically evolved mental apparatus was evolved for survival not truth and that it is very prone to error, that instinct, intuition and common sense are not good arbiters of abstract truths. However, what we disagree with is the idea that the philosophical position of naturalism is anything like an instinct, intuition or common sense notion. Instead it is the majority opinion of educated people today and the result not just of the intuitions or common sense notions of an individual but rather by the cumulative efforts of the best and brightest minds in human history aided by the tools of math, logic and especially the scientific method which is a socially evolved algorithm designed to correct for the deficiencies of our biologically evolved mental apparatus.
Tom Paine yes, he hit the nail on the self-referential head. If you agree with Plantinga that our instincts and beliefs were formed for survival and not truth, then you should be able to see that any appeal to science will be a circular game of proving the reliability of your mental faculties by appealing to arguments which are themselves reliant upon your mental faculties.
I applaud this argument, but I don't think it does far enough. It's not just that, on naturalism, my beliefs would be unreliable (since all my cognitive functions would be oriented to survival and not truth). The problem is deeper. On naturalism, my beliefs are NOTHING OTHER THAN arrangements of neurons in my brain. And an arrangement of neurons is not something to which the concepts of truth or falsity EVEN APPLY. Asking whether an arrangement of neurons is "true" is like asking whether some geometrical shape is heavy or friendly. In short, if naturalism is true, then no beliefs can be true, including one's belief in naturalism.
that's just false.
The assumption that truth is not a survival advantage is clearly and demonstrably false. If you couldn't tell the difference between fresh water and salt water, you wouldn't last long.
Why would the fact that your beliefs are merely arrangements of neurons make them any less true? Surely, if they are made from the same matter as the rest of the universe, then that coherence alone would suggest they are connected in some way - it would be absurd to posit that for some reason they would cause the invention of a response that didn't comport with that from which it was made. If you added oxygen to hydrogen it would be absurd to think you might get anything that wasn't made from oxygen and hydrogen. It's not a very close analogy, but it's close enough to make my point, I think.
On the other hand, Theists claim that God can perform miracles. Miracles are a suspension of the physical laws. So why would you expect your beliefs to be true, given that God could be changing reality in a way that the natural laws break down?
If anything, Plantinga's argument works far better against theism than it does against atheism.
By reasonable Darwinian extension, neither guns nor bibles are in the genetic code. So in neo-evolutionary theory (mainly applying to our species), memes have a co-evolution along with our genes. In fact, philosophers like Dennett and Clark think that meme-evolution is far more important for our species at this point. So why can't "the truth", whatever it is, be more important to meme evolution than gene evolution, and therefore the truth is really important to our evolution RIGHT NOW? IMO, this is more reasonable than anything Plantinga says. In fact, it seems trivially "true" to me, that seeking truth (via scientific discovery) is a *successful* meme, which sticks around from generation to generation. Now I haven't brought up "naturalism" (which Plantinga thinks is important, but also seems to confuse with "reductionism"), but I don't think I have to.
😂 It is amazing how far, those who remained indoctrinated to believe in invisible beings with magical powers, can go to rationalize their beliefs as adults.
It's easy to be flippant and dismiss people's arguments for their views as "rationalization"; it's another thing to demonstrate the invalidity of their arguments.
@@real_john_doe The point has been made and the fact that you feel compelled to make that comment in precisely those terms shows that I hit the nail on the head.
It is amazing how far, those who remained indoctrinated to believe in invisible beings with magical powers, can go to rationalize their beliefs as adults.
@@vejeke "It is amazing how far, those who remained indoctrinated to believe in invisible beings with magical powers, can go to rationalize their beliefs as adults."
Yeah, you've already said that. Do you have anything of substance to say by way of argument?
@@real_john_doe Thank you for inadvertently supporting my point.
@@vejeke Right, me asking you for a counterargument to Plantinga's argument is "inadvertently supporting [your] point." 😂Regardless of whether you're serious or just trolling, this is absolutely hilarious.
Knowledge is completely overrated. Christian's obsession with how horrendous it must be to not be able to know anything is childish. Justified beliefs are all we need to get by, and it's all that we've been getting by on so far.
Plantinga has a sensible answer to every critique of his proof that I have encountered. In many ways, his argument is a corollary to the problem of induction, which has yet to be adequately resolved.
His EAAN has been refuted several times by professional philosophers, he has noticed them and revised his argument. The 1997 refutation by Sober and Fitelson is good and I don't think Plantinga has overcome their objections.
Plantinga's argument is lame because it equates a belief in naturalism with the random musings of a deranged savage, Paul. However a belief in naturalism is so far from that it is absurd. Naturalism is the near consensus worldview of the modern scientific community, lead by many of the best and brightest among us, standing on the shoulders of the discoveries of the leading luminaries of human thought down through history, and guided by the crowning achievement of the human intellect, i.e., the scientific method. And the scientific method is the result of thousands of years of human social/cultural evolution and was created exactly as a method of correcting for deficiencies in our evolved "common sense" way of thinking about things. Indeed common sense evolved for the discovery of truth, but only a certain type of truth, ie., the accurate mapping of our physical environment. In order to understand deeper levels of reality beyond what we can directly observe, it was necessary to overcome our evolved "common sense" and that's what science is all about. The only thing that is "cognitively below par" is the EAAN itself. It is extremely flawed.
So your argument is "A lot of people believe it, so it's gotta be true"
@@baadeeesh "Strawman much".Not much at all actually, or at least I'm pretty scrupulous in trying not to, but probably do inadvertently at times.
Typically its rather poor argumentation to accuse a person of a logical fallacy without identifying where it's being made.
But actually I could see where you could call my first statement a strawman because it is true that Plantinga's ridiculously false analogies are not the sum total of his argument or even close.
However, I think it does kind of represent the gist of the argument while simultaneously exposing why it's a bad argument. Yes, we have good reason to be skeptical of our cognitive faculties as they come out of the box. Heck, we come out of the box as total ignoramuses. If any one of us were left to our own devises we wouldn't even survive, let alone unlock the mysteries of nature. That's why understanding the role of education and social evolution in regard to how we develop our worldviews is so key to a thorough understanding of such, but it's so ignored in Plantinga's argument, and that's why EAAN is lame.
@@samuelhunter4631 Now, there's a true strawman. I never said anything that even suggests such. First I didn't say "It's gotta be true." Secondly, the reason I think it is very reasonable to have faith is the near consensus view of the intellectual elite is not because "a lot of people believe it." More people are theists than naturalists. If it was just a popularity contest, theism wins. It's the quality of the minds of the people involved and the mode of thinking that they employ, i.e., the scientific method, that gives me a much higher level of confidence in their opinions over those of people who would prefer that we rest our understanding on alleged divine revelations found in documents left over from an age of rampant superstition.
@@baadeeesh Huh, yes, I did very well articulate what the flaws are, or what the main flaw is, anyway, ie., EAAN doesn't take into account that knowledge and understanding are largely a social function and that while, yes, there's good reason for us to doubt ideas that result from the operation of our unguided intuitions and common sense, there is far less reason for us to doubt ideas that have been vetted by use of socially constructed cognitive tools honed through millennia of social evolution, tools such as logic, math and science, ideas that are also informed by body of knowledge that has resulted from the endeavors of many of the best and brightest minds in history. Don'tchya think that makes sense? What sense does it make to compare that to the random musings of a deranged savage named Paul?
@@snuzebuster
over those of people who would prefer that we rest our understanding on alleged divine revelations found in documents left over from an age of rampant superstition.>
Quite right, my dear friend.
But let's break down your argument a little
LMAO what a silly argument! Has he never heard of the scientific method. We know that humans can be irrational and subjective to biases, which is why we've devised methods of verifying whether our beliefs are sensible or not
We get feedback through our 5 senses, which may allow us to "confirm" something through the scientific method, but it doesn't make the hypothesis actually true. We may be totally blind to the nature of reality. Maybe our 5 senses don't even scratch the surface to allow us to hold any true beliefs, but are merely sufficient to allow what we call "survival".
@@MPaulHolmesMPH Worse. It was mathematically proofen that evolution would not even give us the senses necessary to understand truth: ruclips.net/video/oYp5XuGYqqY/видео.html Science may answer questions that are related too our survival but it will never be able to answer deeper truths like where does the universe come from.
Mechanical processes create meaning. Each little ball running down the funnel of a Galton board bounces let or right on successive rods randomly. But they all together always create a bell shape figure. Mathematics explains why this is always the case the De Moivre-Laplace theorem. There is no supernatural hand guiding the balls, but mathematical laws understandable to intelligence. No additional "ingredient" other than objects and their relational laws--little balls and equal probabilities of left-right bounces--are sufficient to create meaningful figures both in their observable behavior and in the mathematical representation of that behavior. Other relational laws create different figures when they collide. The believers in supernatural entities should seek their gods in the calculus of relational laws, as Leibniz and Boole endeavored.
Jerry will get a twisted back. Natural evolution
This is in line with many other arguments that makes evident the irrationality of atheism, that is becoming more a religion than a philosophy.
true
@@pjo2386 A religion of the rejection of belief?
Where would they meet on Sundays to sing and pray about their disbelief?
@@Dr-Curious google atheist churches, sunday assemblies, taking place all over the wrld - eg texas, with atheist pastor
@@pjo2386 google atheist churches"
You will always find people who need affirmation in all walks of life. It says nothing about the majority of atheists, who are a group by exclusion rather than inclusion.
You still won't find them praying.
Prophetic.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Lol, glad it helped you to reaffirm your beliefs. Now go read the refutations of his argument.
@@anteodedi8937
...go ahead, refute away.
What about male and female in nature . Which one come first . How it possible that a male get female in the process of evolution? Which look impossible in trillion of odd
How to make a Theist run away from a discussion - i have
done this several times. Let me know how this works for you. I just ask - What
does one DO in Heaven? Just an innocent question, right? But wait it's not as
easy as it looks
First they come back with - "Oh, there will be lots
to do", "God will have work for us" etc but you notice the lack
of details - well, you know where who is, right?
So ask them for details - What kind of work? How much
does it pay? Do you get time off? Or is it like the work of Sisyphus?
Ask them to describe a day in Heaven. Starting with where
do they live? In an home/apt allotted to them? Are all homes/apt the same since
there will be no classes in Heaven? In Communist countries apts were allotted
to people and they were all the same - is it like that?
Is everything free? Then why work?
Or if there is a cost - is the pay enough to live on?
Is everyone paid the same? Doctor, Bus Driver paid the same - again just like in Communist countries
Crazy isn't it? That religions share so many similarities with Communism
Not sure why theists run from these questions since we ask them ourselves. Regardless I think this you have an insightful postulate here. I would say that communism is only conceptually a problem in an imperfect world. That said "heaven" is a dubious assignment for the imagination. It would seem from my studies that the after life should be much like this one with some important exceptions of course.
I would be glad to answer that question. Not only does the Scriptures speak of what will be done in heaven, it actually follows from what it is we do on earth: namely, we will worship what we see as the immanent, all-consuming, incomparable, and most worthy Being there, we will worship God. See Revelation chapters 4, 5 and 20-21. Not a question at all for this theist. Perhaps I may counter with a question for you? If heaven is the final place one may arrive following life on earth, but not one person in that place will be there by obligation or coercion, what will the rest of the human race being doing if not in heaven?
@@DefensoresdelaVerdad Wait You DID NOT answer the question - you simply stated that scriptures do - tell me what the Scriptures say - and I am not talking we will be chatting with x or y - I am talking about real work! Work that puts food on the table, work with which you pay bills, pay rent
So you are saying God has all these people sitting around telling him what a great guy he is? Just like Kings had courtiers sitting around praising him? Like Putin who has his sycophants praising him sky-high?
Or like Prostitutes and leeches surrounding Rich Sugar Daddies, praising him sky-high and hoping for a bone thrown their way?
THIS IS THE GRAND PLAN OF GOD? Billions of lazy moochers telling him what a great guy he is, praising him sky-high?
THIS IS YOUR NOTION OF WORK?
As for your question - Heaven is a fantasy dreamt up by religions such as Christianity. There is no Sugar Daddy in the sky running Retirement Homes for the dead
There is ONLY ONE WORLD! THIS ONE! you die you come back right here but you can also opt out - you will no longer exist
But since you want Heaven - the easy life - you will be reborn as a Dog - then yes you can sit and praise your Master every day - wag your tail to him every day - and he will feed, shelter, protect and care for you - Heaven!
There is a cost to this greed & the cost is the life of a Dog!
At about 4:58 he goes completely off the rails. What he is actually arguing is why he has absurd fantastical beliefs -- his natural cognitive abilities are flawed.
He doesn’t believe his nature is cognitive.
While this is a fascinating argument, I think it is somewhat blinsided by its own premises. If, as the argument states, the truth of naturalism and evolution entails that our cognitive faculties have low reliability, then shouldn't that make this argument itself unreliable? After all, if my cognitive faculty of reasoning is not a reliable indicator of truth, then why is this argument against naturalism reliable either?
Rather, to accept this argument as valid, we would need to presuppose theism. In other words, this argument cannot work with the presupposition of naturalism (assuming evolution to be true, as done in argument). It needs theism to even work as a reliable argument.
Conclusion: It's not naturalism that is self-defeating in light of the truth of evolution, it's this argument itself.
Here’s the problem with this kind of philosophical exercise…if naturalism and evolution were actually in fact true, by Alvin’s lights you couldn’t ever accept or know it.
There for any one who believes in E&N has to admit the can't know truth. And anyone who says they know the truth has to abandon believing in either evolution or naturalism or both.
Fundamental aspects of the universe, is energy. The atom creates the physical that is the maintaining structure, known as the universe.
Ahhhh, no. First, “true” is irrelevant. Useful or effective matter, not truth. Second, our cognitive facilities (cf) and our beliefs, evolved through a long period of test and learn. Their effectiveness is likely to be enormous. And if one or more are later discovered to be in accurate, we simply replace those with the more accurate versions. The move from a geocentric to a heliocentric model is an example.
Further, reason evolved as a means of further improving the accuracy of both our cf and our beliefs. This tool, more than any other, gives us ever increasing confidence in the ever increasing accuracy/effectiveness of our cf’s and beliefs.
Even more damning - as if there were anything left - our cf’s are not isolated and alone. Our cognitive facilities are part and parcel of, integrated with, reliant upon, the very reality this idea claims it is misunderstanding. When I ask what time it is, we look at our watch. When outdoors, and after much trial and error, we might glance at the sum. Therefore our perfectly natural cf’s are intimate with the reality they are adapted to.
So just stop with “truth” because it is not relevant. And understand that your cognitive apparatus is solid for all the reasons offered.