Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Morny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Morny wrote:Then name an instance within the last hundred years, when philosophy was essential to adding to our scientific understanding of the world.

Substitue the word philosophy for the word reason and see how silly your statement sounds.

The word "reason" doesn't appear in my statement.

You're right. Did you use your power of reason to arrive at that correct observation? If so you've affirmed the importance of philosophy. But as Jac said, you know exactly what I meant.

But Byblos , his laboratory can't repeat this and if it can't be repeated in a laboratory we all know that it doesn't exist

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

With respect, it seems to me that far from being mostly true, our beliefs are largely or even mostly wrong. It is very easy to make a list of wrong beliefs: racism, conspiracy theories, alien abduction, most religions have to be wrong, etc.. If that is the case, does that not support the idea that the naturalistic evolution is correct.

Regards

Firstly, I'd disagree with you -- it seems to me our cognitive faculties are really good at getting things right.

For example, consider all the little things...
Like typing at your keyboard to produce a post here will in fact, well... produce writing you can post. You have a computer, one that is connected to the internet, etc.
Or that, getting yourself out of bed in the morning, means you have a belief that you're on a bed, have some reason to get up, can get up, you're able to get yourself up and the like.

SO, when you factor in absolutely every single belief we hold, not just those of "theory" or "hypothesis", then it seems that we are at least being practical with our beliefs in relation to what we experience.

Note: I did not say that our beliefs are mostly true.
Because the thing is, I might believe that I'm seeing the truth of the matter, but if I don't have foundations for trusting my logic and reason then I have a defeater for any belief I hold.
In other words, my cognitive faculties might lead me to believe in this or that as true. BUT, if we have no ground to trust them as properly working then I have a knock-down argument against any belief I hold.

It's like using a broken calculator. Maybe its CPU got fried or something. So that when you enter in 1+1 it always displays the answer 3.
In the same way, we might be processing 3 when the true answer is 2. We'll only ever see the correct answer as 3.
So then how can we be judge over what is right and wrong if we have no basis to trust our rational faculties to give us the right answer?

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.
Therefore, Theism provides solid epistemic grounds, logical grounds for affirming we will carry true beliefs. Our rational faculties is generally reliable when applied i.e., it won't produce 1+1=3.

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.
If we aren't truly designed, and our minds just arose by pure random chance, and indeed are physically reducible to mere atoms bouncing around... then how can we trust our minds?
It seems for any belief we hold, there is no real reason to trust that we have the correct answer. That includes all intellectual thought surrounding Evolutionary theory.

So then, if you accept NE, then in order to avoid have a logical defeater for your belief you must necessarily reject Philosophical Naturalism.

jonesm wrote:

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

With respect, it seems to me that far from being mostly true, our beliefs are largely or even mostly wrong. It is very easy to make a list of wrong beliefs: racism, conspiracy theories, alien abduction, most religions have to be wrong, etc.. If that is the case, does that not support the idea that the naturalistic evolution is correct.

Regards

Jonesm, have you ever seen a car arise by naturalistic means . You can't say that it's impossible , but what does all our experience tell us ?
I've never seen complex specific information arise this way.
Have you ever observed it ?

I hate to say this because naturalism is a silly world view IMO to accept but although a case today might can be made that evolution makes more sense from a theistic perspective? When evolution was first proposed by Darwin it was supposed to be naturalistic evolution and today I've noticed that theistic evolutionists and naturalistic evolutionists tolerate each other even though both sides think the other one is wrong,they do this because of scientists like Ken Miller who have greatly come out defending evolution and yet is a theist. But both sides still think the other side is wrong.

Atheists seem to know evolution really does'nt fit into the bible and that theistic evolutionists make it fit and it does not change many minds to either side so I'm not so sure it benefits the church to accept evolution.

Personally I reject it based on scientists who are evolutionists but are honest enough to realize the problems with evolution and have had the courage to speak out about it,which is not easy because they are then considered scientific heretics but I think they make valid arguments and I tend to side with them even though they still remain an evolutionist and have hope that the problems with evolution can be solved.I don't think they can or will be solved.

Kurieuo wrote:Firstly, I'd disagree with you -- it seems to me our cognitive faculties are really good at getting things right.

For example, consider all the little things...
Like typing at your keyboard to produce a post here will in fact, well... produce writing you can post. You have a computer, one that is connected to the internet, etc.
Or that, getting yourself out of bed in the morning, means you have a belief that you're on a bed, have some reason to get up, can get up, you're able to get yourself up and the like.

SO, when you factor in absolutely every single belief we hold, not just those of "theory" or "hypothesis", then it seems that we are at least being practical with our beliefs in relation to what we experience.

Note: I did not say that our beliefs are mostly true.
Because the thing is, I might believe that I'm seeing the truth of the matter, but if I don't have foundations for trusting my logic and reason then I have a defeater for any belief I hold.
In other words, my cognitive faculties might lead me to believe in this or that as true. BUT, if we have no ground to trust them as properly working then I have a knock-down argument against any belief I hold.

It's like using a broken calculator. Maybe its CPU got fried or something. So that when you enter in 1+1 it always displays the answer 3.
In the same way, we might be processing 3 when the true answer is 2. We'll only ever see the correct answer as 3.
So then how can we be judge over what is right and wrong if we have no basis to trust our rational faculties to give us the right answer?

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.
Therefore, Theism provides solid epistemic grounds, logical grounds for affirming we will carry true beliefs. Our rational faculties is generally reliable when applied i.e., it won't produce 1+1=3.

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.
If we aren't truly designed, and our minds just arose by pure random chance, and indeed are physically reducible to mere atoms bouncing around... then how can we trust our minds?
It seems for any belief we hold, there is no real reason to trust that we have the correct answer. That includes all intellectual thought surrounding Evolutionary theory.

So then, if you accept NE, then in order to avoid have a logical defeater for your belief you must necessarily reject Philosophical Naturalism.

Or, more simply, if he's managed to figure out--that is, if his mind has been able to discover a true belief--that "racism, conspiracy theories, alien abduction, most religions have to be wrong, etc," then he's just conceding your point anyway. Or more fundamentally, he his mind has been able to figure out that your post is wrong, then apparently he's holding a true belief, which goes to the point of your post.

Ah, I love it when people post self-refuting nonsense.

Dear bibby123

Jonesm, have you ever seen a car arise by naturalistic means . You can't say that it's impossible , but what does all our experience tell us ?
I've never seen complex specific information arise this way.
Have you ever observed it ?

I have never seen a car arise through natural means, but I think that is another topic.

Regards
jonesm

Dear kurieuo

Firstly, I'd disagree with you -- it seems to me our cognitive faculties are really good at getting things right.

I take your point, but is not Prof. Plantinga's argument essentially about cognitive faculties that arrive at the truth. What you are describing seems to be perception. Naturalistic evolution does not have any difficulty as an explanation of how we can have accurate perceptions of the world.
Regards
jonesm

Dear Jac3510

Or, more simply, if he's managed to figure out--that is, if his mind has been able to discover a true belief--that "racism, conspiracy theories, alien abduction, most religions have to be wrong, etc," then he's just conceding your point anyway. Or more fundamentally, he his mind has been able to figure out that your post is wrong, then apparently he's holding a true belief, which goes to the point of your post.

Ah, I love it when people post self-refuting nonsense.

You seem to be arguing that if my mind has been able to discover a truth, then I must be wrong about cognitive faculties being unreliable, but then I am refuting myself; but that would mean my cognitive faculties are unreliable, which is what you would expect if naturalism and evolution are both correct.

Regards jonesm

jonesm wrote:Dear kurieuo

Firstly, I'd disagree with you -- it seems to me our cognitive faculties are really good at getting things right.

I take your point, but is not Prof. Plantinga's argument essentially about cognitive faculties that arrive at the truth. What you are describing seems to be perception. Naturalistic evolution does not have any difficulty as an explanation of how we can have accurate perceptions of the world.
Regards
jonesm

If you take my point then what it this "perception" you think I describe when I very much intend "belief".
How do the examples I provided NOT point to beliefs.

In any case, I really don't intend to offend but I'm not sure you do understand Plantinga's argument.
I think it comes down to some confusion over Naturalism as described in the opening post, and what you/we would term "Natural Evolution".

First, do you understand that Plantinga's argument isn't at all against naturalistic Evolution? (for that seems to have been your focus here)
Second, you understand the distinction between "Naturalism" as defined in the opening post, and evolution unfolding quite naturally?

I guess, I'll need to wait for your responses to those two questions before continuing.
BUT, know that I'm happy to respectfully dialogue with you here.

If you take my point then what it this "perception" you think I describe when I very much intend "belief".
How do the examples I provided NOT point to beliefs.
In any case, I really don't intend to offend but I'm not sure you do understand Plantinga's argument.
I think it comes down to some confusion over Naturalism as described in the opening post, and what you/we would term "Natural Evolution".
First, do you understand that Plantinga's argument isn't at all against naturalistic Evolution? (for that seems to have been your focus here)
Second, you understand the distinction between "Naturalism" as defined in the opening post, and evolution unfolding quite naturally?
I guess, I'll need to wait for your responses to those two questions before continuing. “

Dear kurieuo
Thanks for the reply.
I think that you are not writing about beliefs when giving as an example that we are in bed and can get up. My cat can do that! Surely he is aware of his environment and can act, but does he have beliefs as I do? Surely there is something more that we humans can do and the closer it is to perception or experience the more reliable it is, but the further away the less reliable it is. This is what I find unconvincing about Prof. Plantinga’s argument. Perceiving or experiencing is reliable, but developing beliefs and seeking truth, such as a belief such as naturalism, is not.
Regarding my understanding of the EAAN, I have read it, and as I understand it, Prof. Plantinga defines naturalism as believing that there is no such thing as a god, and he argues that if naturalism is correct, and the Theory of Evolution is correct then we cannot have confidence that our cognitive faculties will arrive at an understanding of truth. He asserts that our cognitive faculties are reliable in this way, therefore naturalism is irrational.
My question is around Prof. Plantinga’s assertion that our cognitive faculties are reliable in determining truth, because of the large number of incorrect beliefs. A large number of incorrect beliefs is what you would expect if following Prof. Plantinga’s argument and that both naturalism and the Theory of Evolution were correct.

Regards
jonesm

Kurieuo wrote: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.

Kurieuo wrote: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.

jonesm wrote:

If you take my point then what it this "perception" you think I describe when I very much intend "belief".
How do the examples I provided NOT point to beliefs.
In any case, I really don't intend to offend but I'm not sure you do understand Plantinga's argument.
I think it comes down to some confusion over Naturalism as described in the opening post, and what you/we would term "Natural Evolution".
First, do you understand that Plantinga's argument isn't at all against naturalistic Evolution? (for that seems to have been your focus here)
Second, you understand the distinction between "Naturalism" as defined in the opening post, and evolution unfolding quite naturally?
I guess, I'll need to wait for your responses to those two questions before continuing. “

Dear kurieuo
Thanks for the reply.
I think that you are not writing about beliefs when giving as an example that we are in bed and can get up. My cat can do that! Surely he is aware of his environment and can act, but does he have beliefs as I do? Surely there is something more that we humans can do and the closer it is to perception or experience the more reliable it is, but the further away the less reliable it is. This is what I find unconvincing about Prof. Plantinga’s argument. Perceiving or experiencing is reliable, but developing beliefs and seeking truth, such as a belief such as naturalism, is not.
Regarding my understanding of the EAAN, I have read it, and as I understand it, Prof. Plantinga defines naturalism as believing that there is no such thing as a god, and he argues that if naturalism is correct, and the Theory of Evolution is correct then we cannot have confidence that our cognitive faculties will arrive at an understanding of truth. He asserts that our cognitive faculties are reliable in this way, therefore naturalism is irrational.
My question is around Prof. Plantinga’s assertion that our cognitive faculties are reliable in determining truth, because of the large number of incorrect beliefs. A large number of incorrect beliefs is what you would expect if following Prof. Plantinga’s argument and that both naturalism and the Theory of Evolution were correct.

Regards
jonesm

You were doing well explaining the EAAN
I dare say that you still do not get Plantinga's argument.

Palntinga neither says one way or another whether our cognitive faculties are reliable??
It also doesn't matter that you or I think we're correct in our opinion whether or not we have beliefs correct or not.

If you lay out the argument in formal logic, then that would be better I think.
Then you can say which premise you disagree with, and why... rather than talking off-the-cuff if you will.
It'd certainly make whatever your argument is more clear. Because right now, I'm scratching my head [about your refutation, if one is being offered or merely side commentary?].

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: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.

Kurieuo wrote: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.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: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.

Kurieuo wrote: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".