Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

[Kurieuo]

And so finally, if you believe NE is correct, then you believe your rational faculties can be trusted (since you reach that conclusion through them).
Theism therefore makes better sense of NE, because God creating us would have purposefully design us including our cognitive faculties to work properly within the world.

Similarly, Pastafarianism therefore makes better sense of NE, because The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating us would have purposefully designed us including our cognitive faculties to work properly within the world.

On the other hand, if you believe NE is correct AND you believe that Philosophical Naturalism is correct -- well now, now there is an issue.

Strawman, and a category mistake. The conflation of PN with Methodological Naturalism is a fundamental, and apparently never-ending, source of misunderstanding. All of science provisionally relies on MN. No science relies on PN.

Look at who has come back the philosopher with "strawman" and "category mistake".
The irony to your strawman invocation makes me smile btw.

And yet, your conflation of PN with MN still stands unanswered, as does using "Pastafarianism" as an equally valid argument, instead of "theism".

Maybe because you're creating a strawman in your over-simplification, not to mention throwing a "red herring".

But Morny, can create a list for me some things that you believe in that you can't repeat in a lab?
Oh, and how you arrived at your belief in such things.

[Morny]

And so finally, if you believe NE is correct, then you believe your rational faculties can be trusted (since you reach that conclusion through them).
Theism therefore makes better sense of NE, because God creating us would have purposefully design us including our cognitive faculties to work properly within the world.

Similarly, Pastafarianism therefore makes better sense of NE, because The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating us would have purposefully designed us including our cognitive faculties to work properly within the world.

On the other hand, if you believe NE is correct AND you believe that Philosophical Naturalism is correct -- well now, now there is an issue.

Strawman, and a category mistake. The conflation of PN with Methodological Naturalism is a fundamental, and apparently never-ending, source of misunderstanding. All of science provisionally relies on MN. No science relies on PN.

Look at who has come back the philosopher with "strawman" and "category mistake".
The irony to your strawman invocation makes me smile btw.

And yet, your conflation of PN with MN still stands unanswered, as does using "Pastafarianism" as an equally valid argument, instead of "theism".

Maybe because you're creating a strawman in your over-simplification, not to mention throwing a "red herring".

No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

But Morny, can create a list for me some things that you believe in that you can't repeat in a lab?
Oh, and how you arrived at your belief in such things.

Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

[Kurieuo]

No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

Perhaps you ought to take your smelly fish to our discussion had around two years ago. We can continue your PN/MN distraction there, eh?

Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

Typical Atheist avoidance. Refusing to place nothing on the table. You respect my questions, I'll respect yours.
OR, you can take a hike Morny as I'm not interested in responding to uncharitable stupidity or arrogance dripping with scientific pretence.

[stuartcr]

Alvin Plantinga has made this one of his personal arguments.
When appropriately framed, this is one main reason I believe one must necessarily be Theist if they're to rationally accept the ToE as true.

According to Theism, we human beings and all Creation have been created by a wholly good, all-knowing Being (i.e., God).
Furthermore, in Theistic belief systems like Judaism and Christianity it is said that we are created in God's image.
A part of that image, involves, the reliability of cognitive faculties and ability to know things about ourselves and the world, as Thomas Aquinas says:
"Since human beings are said to be in the image of God including a human nature involving an intellect."
And so, only in rational creatures, creatures with reason, is there found a likeness of God.

So what are our cognitive faculties there for?
Most of us would think that at least one function of our cognitive faculties is to provide us with true beliefs.
And when they're functioning properly, when there's no malfunctioning, and for the most part that's what they do.

Now contrast the Theistic grounding for reliable cognitive faculties against Naturalism.
Naturalism says all of what we see exists only minus God out of the picture.
Some popular Naturalists would be Carl Sagan ("the cosmos is all there is, or ever has been, or ever will be"), Stephen J Gould, David Armstrong, Darwin (later in life), Bertrand Russel, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dannet and the like.

Isn't there a problem here for the Naturalist?
That is, the Naturalist who believes that we and our cognitive faculties have arrived on the scene by Evolution.
After some billions years of evolution, by the way of natural selection, genetic drift and other blind processes working on sources of genetic variation like random genetic mutation.
Isn't there a problem? If this is the way we should think of it, then shouldn't we be surprised that our rational faculties are in fact reliable?
If Naturalism and Evolution are both true, it seems greatly improbable that our cognitive faculties (memories, reasoning, etc) would in fact result in true beliefs.

Given this, if you believe in both Naturalism and Evolution, then you have a defeater for believing your cognitive faculties are reliable.
But, we can hardly deny what seems intuitive to us -- that is, our cognitive faculties do provide us with true information about the world.
We can no further deny this then we could unflinchingly cut off our own arm (now perhaps some wierdo could do that, but you get what I mean).
So it turns out that we have a defeater for belief in both "Naturalism" and "Evolution" together. One of these must be dropped.
And if Evolution is beyond scientific doubt, we must then drop Naturalism.

Dawkins has stated that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.
It is rather ironic that it seems to be more the case that Darwin's theory actually makes it irrational to be an Atheist.

How the words of the Agnostic Robert Jastrow seem to ring true:

• For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

What if we were not created in the image of God?

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Stuart, for at least responding directly to my post.

This isn't really an argument for God, not really. So I doubt the "image of God" matters much.
Rather Theism is setup as a contrast to explaining the argument. At least that's how I take it.

EAAN, as I see it, is more an argument against knowledge, that is, justified belief in a world wherein God doesn't exist
-- and a world where "no God" exists who created us is a world full of random chance and luck (aka "Naturalism").

If everything happened by pure luck and chance, the evolution of us and our minds, then can we seriously trust that they're properly functioning when it comes to getting at truth?
What reasons can be provided to justify our faith in our minds? How can we trust our own thinking. That's what needs to be answered.

It won't do to just say we know this and that either, for a deluded person can't know the truth of their delusion. Right?
And yet, a deluded person may appear to get along in the world just fine with their wrong beliefs.

EAAN is ultimately an argument against knowledge being had in an Atheistic view of the world.
As contrasted against Theism which if true, does provide some grounds for trusting in our knowledge.

[stuartcr]

Thanks Stuart, for at least responding directly to my post.

This isn't really an argument for God, not really. So I doubt the "image of God" matters much.
Rather Theism is setup as a contrast to explaining the argument. At least that's how I take it.

EAAN, as I see it, is more an argument against knowledge, that is, justified belief in a world wherein God doesn't exist
-- and a world where "no God" exists who created us is a world full of random chance and luck (aka "Naturalism").

If everything happened by pure luck and chance, the evolution of us and our minds, then can we seriously trust that they're properly functioning when it comes to getting at truth?
What reasons can be provided to justify our faith in our minds? How can we trust our own thinking. That's what needs to be answered.

It won't do to just say we know this and that either, for a deluded person can't know the truth of their delusion. Right?
And yet, a deluded person may appear to get along in the world just fine with their wrong beliefs.


EAAN is ultimately an argument against knowledge being had in an Atheistic view of the world.
As contrasted against Theism which if true, does provide some grounds for trusting in our knowledge.

Is justified belief the same as knowledge? I don't understand a need to justify one's faith.

[jonesm]

If you lay out the argument in formal logic, then that would be better I think.

Dear Kurieuo
Thanks for the suggestion. I am finding it tricky to turn the EAAN into a formal set of premises. I will have to get back to you.
Regards jonesm

[Kurieuo]

If you lay out the argument in formal logic, then that would be better I think.

Dear Kurieuo
Thanks for the suggestion. I am finding it tricky to turn the EAAN into a formal set of premises. I will have to get back to you.
Regards jonesm

That'd be really neat if you did do that.
What is great about formal arguments is that is enables you or others to more easily pick the point of disagreement.
And it provides substance an opponent such as myself (if I be one) can either concede to or respond to.

I've personally laid out EAAN in formal logic, and what I thought was initially a simple task became quite complicated when laid out as an argument.
I didn't realise actually how complicated the argument is. Doing so also did reveal to me what I thought were some weaknesses, more perhaps with how it was heard and received by many critics.

A more succinct version can be found I what I wrote in this thread in bullet form here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 54#p172129
The logic I present there, at the request of someone who just ultimately thumbed their nose at me, is quite formal-like. It might help you.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Stuart, for at least responding directly to my post.

This isn't really an argument for God, not really. So I doubt the "image of God" matters much.
Rather Theism is setup as a contrast to explaining the argument. At least that's how I take it.

EAAN, as I see it, is more an argument against knowledge, that is, justified belief in a world wherein God doesn't exist
-- and a world where "no God" exists who created us is a world full of random chance and luck (aka "Naturalism").

If everything happened by pure luck and chance, the evolution of us and our minds, then can we seriously trust that they're properly functioning when it comes to getting at truth?
What reasons can be provided to justify our faith in our minds? How can we trust our own thinking. That's what needs to be answered.

It won't do to just say we know this and that either, for a deluded person can't know the truth of their delusion. Right?
And yet, a deluded person may appear to get along in the world just fine with their wrong beliefs.
EAAN is ultimately an argument against knowledge being had in an Atheistic view of the world.
As contrasted against Theism which if true, does provide some grounds for trusting in our knowledge.

Is justified belief the same as knowledge? I don't understand a need to justify one's faith.

Hi Stuart,

Yes "justified belief" counts as knowledge.
"Mere belief" however wouldn't be knowledge.

Consider this:
To know something means you know that something based upon this or that revelation.
To believe something could just be a matter of personal taste rather than based upon anything.

Given this, your "knowledge" might be wrong based upon a faulty understanding of what was revealed or perhaps due to faulty reasoning.
This "faulty reasoning" is the crux in the EAAN. Plantinga is saying in a world without God, we have no reason to trust that our knowledge of the world (attained via our rational faculties) is indeed correct. Therefore, every belief we have is logically defeated. We may choose to believe otherwise, but to logically 'believe that we are can reliably attain knowledge' is incoherent with 'a view of the world where our rational thinking minds arise from pure chance and randominity.'

When you say that you don't understand a need to justify one's faith, are you talking about a faith in our rational faculties (i.e., ability to reason like if A then B, A therefore B)?

PS. I wrote more in response to your question about "belief" and "knowledge" in your other thread here.

[Morny]

No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

Perhaps you ought to take your smelly fish to our discussion had around two years ago. We can continue your PN/MN distraction there, eh?

You might want to cool down.

In this thread, you are the one who brought up PN relating to science. I questioned that and asked for one example. In the topic you referenced from 2 years ago, I (and PerciFlage) asked basically the same important and relevant question multiple times, without you addressing the question. Show one use of PN for establishing or inhibiting any finding in any field of science.

Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

Typical Atheist avoidance. Refusing to place nothing on the table. You respect my questions, I'll respect yours.
OR, you can take a hike Morny as I'm not interested in responding to uncharitable stupidity or arrogance dripping with scientific pretence.

Not sure to whom you're addressing - I'm not an atheist.

In any event, I already had a draft to your things-that-you-believe question. But you first placed PN and science together on the "table" in this topic. And with my being stupid and all, adding another item on the "table" to think about would be too complicated for me.

[Kurieuo]

No over-simplification. Science uses MN, not PN. Show the use of PN for establishing any finding in any field of science.

Perhaps you ought to take your smelly fish to our discussion had around two years ago. We can continue your PN/MN distraction there, eh?

You might want to cool down.

In this thread, you are the one who brought up PN relating to science. I questioned that and asked for one example. In the topic you referenced from 2 years ago, I (and PerciFlage) asked basically the same important and relevant question multiple times, without you addressing the question. Show one use of PN for establishing or inhibiting any finding in any field of science.

Sure, but after we resolve your main confusion on one of science's foundational principles.

Typical Atheist avoidance. Refusing to place nothing on the table. You respect my questions, I'll respect yours.
OR, you can take a hike Morny as I'm not interested in responding to uncharitable stupidity or arrogance dripping with scientific pretence.

Not sure to whom you're addressing - I'm not an atheist.

In any event, I already had a draft to your things-that-you-believe question. But you first placed PN and science together on the "table" in this topic. And with my being stupid and all, adding another item on the "table" to think about would be too complicated for me.

I don't believe anyone is truly Atheist, so you can call yourself Agnostic, Atheist-Agnostic, weak Atheist, or unsure...
Your "Pastafarianism" and higher than thou scientific pretence insults my intelligence and is therefore extremely off-putting.
That, Morny, is uncharitable stupidity. If that's you being stupid, then that's a connection you've made.

Treat me and my beliefs as stupid and with disdain and disrespect, and I'll do the same.
ABL and others may take it (and I'm not really just talking about you here), but I will not.
That's all I want to say really.

[stuartcr]

Thanks Stuart, for at least responding directly to my post.

This isn't really an argument for God, not really. So I doubt the "image of God" matters much.
Rather Theism is setup as a contrast to explaining the argument. At least that's how I take it.

EAAN, as I see it, is more an argument against knowledge, that is, justified belief in a world wherein God doesn't exist
-- and a world where "no God" exists who created us is a world full of random chance and luck (aka "Naturalism").

If everything happened by pure luck and chance, the evolution of us and our minds, then can we seriously trust that they're properly functioning when it comes to getting at truth?
What reasons can be provided to justify our faith in our minds? How can we trust our own thinking. That's what needs to be answered.

It won't do to just say we know this and that either, for a deluded person can't know the truth of their delusion. Right?
And yet, a deluded person may appear to get along in the world just fine with their wrong beliefs.
EAAN is ultimately an argument against knowledge being had in an Atheistic view of the world.
As contrasted against Theism which if true, does provide some grounds for trusting in our knowledge.

Is justified belief the same as knowledge? I don't understand a need to justify one's faith.

Hi Stuart,

Yes "justified belief" counts as knowledge.
"Mere belief" however wouldn't be knowledge.

Consider this:
To know something means you know that something based upon this or that revelation.
To believe something could just be a matter of personal taste rather than based upon anything.

Given this, your "knowledge" might be wrong based upon a faulty understanding of what was revealed or perhaps due to faulty reasoning.
This "faulty reasoning" is the crux in the EAAN. Plantinga is saying in a world without God, we have no reason to trust that our knowledge of the world (attained via our rational faculties) is indeed correct. Therefore, every belief we have is logically defeated. We may choose to believe otherwise, but to logically 'believe that we are can reliably attain knowledge' is incoherent with 'a view of the world where our rational thinking minds arise from pure chance and randominity.'

When you say that you don't understand a need to justify one's faith, are you talking about a faith in our rational faculties (i.e., ability to reason like if A then B, A therefore B)?

PS. I wrote more in response to your question about "belief" and "knowledge" in your other thread here.

When you speak of knowledge, do you mean knowledge of a revelation or knowledge gained from a revelation?

Does the knowledge gleaned from a revelation have to be factual?

If someone has a revelation and pronounces what has been revealed as knowledge, how is it validated or proven to another? Do we take it as fact, even if we have either not had the same revelation?

No, faith as in ones' belief in God.

[stuartcr]

Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Stuart, for at least responding directly to my post.

This isn't really an argument for God, not really. So I doubt the "image of God" matters much.
Rather Theism is setup as a contrast to explaining the argument. At least that's how I take it.

EAAN, as I see it, is more an argument against knowledge, that is, justified belief in a world wherein God doesn't exist
-- and a world where "no God" exists who created us is a world full of random chance and luck (aka "Naturalism").

If everything happened by pure luck and chance, the evolution of us and our minds, then can we seriously trust that they're properly functioning when it comes to getting at truth?
What reasons can be provided to justify our faith in our minds? How can we trust our own thinking. That's what needs to be answered.

It won't do to just say we know this and that either, for a deluded person can't know the truth of their delusion. Right?
And yet, a deluded person may appear to get along in the world just fine with their wrong beliefs.
EAAN is ultimately an argument against knowledge being had in an Atheistic view of the world.
As contrasted against Theism which if true, does provide some grounds for trusting in our knowledge.

Is justified belief the same as knowledge? I don't understand a need to justify one's faith.

Hi Stuart,

Yes "justified belief" counts as knowledge.
"Mere belief" however wouldn't be knowledge.

Consider this:
To know something means you know that something based upon this or that revelation.
To believe something could just be a matter of personal taste rather than based upon anything.

Given this, your "knowledge" might be wrong based upon a faulty understanding of what was revealed or perhaps due to faulty reasoning.
This "faulty reasoning" is the crux in the EAAN. Plantinga is saying in a world without God, we have no reason to trust that our knowledge of the world (attained via our rational faculties) is indeed correct. Therefore, every belief we have is logically defeated. We may choose to believe otherwise, but to logically 'believe that we are can reliably attain knowledge' is incoherent with 'a view of the world where our rational thinking minds arise from pure chance and randominity.'

When you say that you don't understand a need to justify one's faith, are you talking about a faith in our rational faculties (i.e., ability to reason like if A then B, A therefore B)?

PS. I wrote more in response to your question about "belief" and "knowledge" in your other thread here.

When you speak of knowledge, do you mean knowledge of a revelation or knowledge gained from a revelation?

Does the knowledge gleaned from a revelation have to be factual?

If someone has a revelation and pronounces what has been revealed as knowledge, how is it validated or proven to another? Do we take it as fact, even if we have either not had the same revelation?

No, faith as in ones' belief in God.

I think you're thinking beyond my words.

By "revelation" such might be experiencing (whether seeing, tasting, touching, hearing, smelling, affections, emotions and spiritual), logic and reason.

In other words, knowledge is not built up upon opinion, but based upon something other. So then, re-apply that to my post.

And rather than ask people, have you heard the saying Google is your friend.
If you want to understand the difference between "knowledge" and "belief" then search for something along the lines of "epistemology what is knowledge" should bring up something. Have a read of the thought out there on the topic. Then get back to me. I'd love to entertain such a discussion.

[Kurieuo]

Sorry, I forgot this part.
Who determines the difference between a "justified belief" and a "mere belief?"

Theory of justification (epistemic justification) is a big topic within philosophy.
There are varied positions. Again, look into it and do some reading.
It is a fascinating topic.

"In terms of the biblical belief, 'knowledge of God' and 'belief' thereof could be interchangeable." Why are they interchangeable?

I understand that Thomas "believed", but it took a revelation. Why is the revelation necessary in order to believe in God? This, to me, is not knowledge, but a belief based upon a revelation.

Because "Biblical belief" normally means belief that is based upon evidence -- and belief based upon justification gets upgraded from merely a belief to knowledge.