Evidence for God from Science

jonesm wrote:I have had a go at the key premises in the EAAN and I do not think there are that many.
1. Cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs
2. The theory of evolution is correct
3. Belief forming faculties are selected through the evolutionary process on the basis of their survival value not their success at truthfulness
The premise that I queried in my post is 1., that our cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs. This flies in the face of the number of beliefs that turn out to be wrong.

Is this even an argument? For it doesn't follow.

Here is a good YouTube video, for yourself, Morny and MBPrata with everything being said.

Although it goes way beyond an introduction, and just jumps straight in.
It one that requires your full attention as various extended points are made.

For those wanting to understand this argument, but take it at a slower pace that is easier to follow:



There is a more recent talk Plantinga has done, but I think this earlier series is better spoken.

The fuller running series has been put together at: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list? ... C36901BCEE

Kurieuo wrote:

jonesm wrote:I have had a go at the key premises in the EAAN and I do not think there are that many.
1. Cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs
2. The theory of evolution is correct
3. Belief forming faculties are selected through the evolutionary process on the basis of their survival value not their success at truthfulness
The premise that I queried in my post is 1., that our cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs. This flies in the face of the number of beliefs that turn out to be wrong.

Is this even an argument? For it doesn't follow.

Dear Kurieuo,
No it is not an argument; it is the key premises of the EAAN.
Regards jonesm

Fair enough. I won't knock it further, because I think it can be difficult to articulate in argument form.
Mainly because it takes time imparting understanding, defining things, and then setting up the framework.

At the end of the day, Plantinga's argument results in a conclusion that Naturalism (the belief that a natural world is all there is devoid of any deity) and Evolution (commonly understood in terms of natural selection acting on random mutation, survival of the fittest, all that) are LOGICALLY incompatible bedfellows.

Did you take a look at that video I posted "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Introduction)".
This really is well done I though, though one could get lost if their full attention isn't in it.

Kurieuo wrote:

jonesm wrote:I have had a go at the key premises in the EAAN and I do not think there are that many.
1. Cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs
2. The theory of evolution is correct
3. Belief forming faculties are selected through the evolutionary process on the basis of their survival value not their success at truthfulness
The premise that I queried in my post is 1., that our cognitive faculties are reliable at forming true beliefs. This flies in the face of the number of beliefs that turn out to be wrong.

Is this even an argument? For it doesn't follow.

Plantinga conclusions:
1. If evolution and philosophic naturalism are true, then reliable thinking is unlikely.
2. If God made us, even via evolution, then reliable thinking is likely.

At a minimum, Plantinga's argument is irrelevant. Science/evolution relies on methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.

Even ignoring that, Plantinga's only claim against evolution is not being able to produce reliable thinking. So any wishful thinking that creationists might have that Plantinga brings down the other 99.99% of evolution that they might disagree with, is non-existent.

In any event, the flaw in Plantinga's argument for determining the low probability of reliable thinking, given philosophical naturalism and evolution (in a Bayesian framework), is not providing evidence for his initial probabilities.

Plantinga's hand-waving leads inevitably to his deduction: "I don't see how evolution (natural selection) can create reliable thinking, therefore God must be involved."

Plantinga doesn't seem to have a problem with natural selection helping our brains to become better at beliefs that contribute to adaptive behaviors in a dog-eat-dog world. But Plantinga doesn't even attempt to show why that same magnificently effective real-world problem solving brain would then have a low probability of forming reliable beliefs about less worldly theoretical areas, e.g., General Relativity.

Regardless, numerous philosophers (and scientists) have used coma-inducing levels of patience and rigor to point out gaping flaws in Plantinga's arguments. Here are just two more:

http://fitelson.org/plant.pdf
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... ument.html

Perhaps due to peers pointing out problems with his earlier stuff, Plantinga has more recently concentrated on semantic content being the problem for evolution (natural selection). If anyone thought the hand-waving was bad before, ...

The philosopher, John Searle, shows a somewhat similar willingness to go whole-hog on conferring paranormal-like explanations for consciousness in his famous "Chinese room" thought experiment.

As mentioned above,

• Plantinga's argument results in a conclusion that Naturalism (the belief that a natural world is all there is devoid of any deity) and Evolution (commonly understood in terms of natural selection acting on random mutation, survival of the fittest, all that) are LOGICALLY incompatible bedfellows.

It is not an argument against evolution.
It is not an argument against Naturalism.
It is not an argument against evolution being unable to produce reliable thinking.
It is not an argument against being able to trust one's rationality, methodological naturalism, the scientific method or what-have-you.

So provided these misunderstandings continue, I'm not sure what benefit there to be had...

BUT, I would encourage anyone listening to the video series of Alvin Plantinga that I posted above, and also that EAAN Introduction video.

Kurieuo wrote:As mentioned above,

• Plantinga's argument results in a conclusion that Naturalism (the belief that a natural world is all there is devoid of any deity) and Evolution (commonly understood in terms of natural selection acting on random mutation, survival of the fittest, all that) are LOGICALLY incompatible bedfellows.

It is not an argument against evolution.
It is not an argument against Naturalism.
It is not an argument against evolution being unable to produce reliable thinking.
It is not an argument against being able to trust one's rationality, methodological naturalism, the scientific method or what-have-you.

So provided these misunderstandings continue, I'm not sure what benefit there to be had...

BUT, I would encourage anyone listening to the video series of Alvin Plantinga that I posted above, and also that EAAN Introduction video.

Not sure where you think the misunderstanding is. I said above that Plantinga's conclusion is:
"If evolution and philosophic naturalism are true, then reliable thinking is unlikely."
which directly leads to a contradiction, because supposedly humans can reliably think. So, according to Plantinga, either PN or evolution (or both) are false.

Surely, I can assume that you agree?
Good.

My statement above is far more specific and relevant, than your sweeping statement that PN and evolution are simply logically incompatible. The crux of Plantiga's argument rests on this existence of "reliable thinking". (at 9:25 in the 1 of 6 video)

Repeating the hole in Plantinga's argument from my previous post ... (assuming PN)

"Plantinga doesn't seem to have a problem with natural selection helping our brains to become better at beliefs that contribute to adaptive behaviors in a dog-eat-dog world. But Plantinga doesn't even attempt to show why that same magnificently effective real-world problem solving brain would then have a low probability of forming reliable beliefs about less worldly theoretical areas, e.g., General Relativity."

If you even understand Plantinga's argument, simply and clearly state what I'm missing with respect to this foundational flaw in Plantinga's argument.

Did you take a look at that video I posted "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Introduction)".
This really is well done I though, though one could get lost if their full attention isn't in it.

Dear Kurieuo
I watched the video you posted. At about 4:25 the speaker refers to Ptolomeic astronomy, a belief now thought to be untrue. It is not just Ptolomeic astronomy; the history of science is littered with theories once accepted and now rejected. This is what you would expect if our brains are not reliable at determining true beliefs and this is predicted by naturalism and evolution both being correct.
Regards
jonesm

jonesm wrote:

Did you take a look at that video I posted "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Introduction)".
This really is well done I though, though one could get lost if their full attention isn't in it.

Dear Kurieuo
I watched the video you posted. At about 4:25 the speaker refers to Ptolomeic astronomy, a belief now thought to be untrue. It is not just Ptolomeic astronomy; the history of science is littered with theories once accepted and now rejected. This is what you would expect if our brains are not reliable at determining true beliefs and this is predicted by naturalism and evolution both being correct.
Regards
jonesm

So because science says evolution and naturalism is true even though man has been wrong so many times,evolution and naturalism are true and there is no way God is needed even when evolution or naturalism has never been demonstrated by one scientist,yet they are still right and we should believe them over God?

jonesm wrote:

Did you take a look at that video I posted "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (Introduction)".
This really is well done I though, though one could get lost if their full attention isn't in it.

Dear Kurieuo
I watched the video you posted. At about 4:25 the speaker refers to Ptolomeic astronomy, a belief now thought to be untrue. It is not just Ptolomeic astronomy; the history of science is littered with theories once accepted and now rejected. This is what you would expect if our brains are not reliable at determining true beliefs and this is predicted by naturalism and evolution both being correct.
Regards
jonesm

But, you do see, now you have a defeater for your final conclusion there?

So because science says evolution and naturalism is true even though man has been wrong so many times,evolution and naturalism are true and there is no way God is needed even when evolution or naturalism has never been demonstrated by one scientist,yet they are still right and we should believe them over God?

Dear abelcainsbrother
I apologise for not have made myself clear, I am not saying the above. I agree with you that man has been wrong so many times and according to Prof. Plantinga this is what you would expect if naturalism and evolution are both true. The logical conclusion of the EAAN is that naturalism is correct.
Regards jonesm

But, you do see, now you have a defeater for your final conclusion there?

Dear Kurieuo
I understand that if naturalism and evolution are correct then we do not have reliable beliefs. However, this does not detract from the conclusion, following the logic of the EAAN, that naturalism is correct. It means of course that our beliefs (including the EAAN) are not reliable, but so be it; the logic of the EAAN is inescapable.
Regards jonesm

jonesm wrote:

So because science says evolution and naturalism is true even though man has been wrong so many times,evolution and naturalism are true and there is no way God is needed even when evolution or naturalism has never been demonstrated by one scientist,yet they are still right and we should believe them over God?

Dear abelcainsbrother
I apologise for not have made myself clear, I am not saying the above. I agree with you that man has been wrong so many times and according to Prof. Plantinga this is what you would expect if naturalism and evolution are both true. The logical conclusion of the EAAN is that naturalism is correct.
Regards jonesm

Good I agree with you so why are you believing man say naturalism and evolution are true? As you said man has been wrong so many times and yet here you are doing it.The bible tells us over and over not to believe man over God.Man is prideful and hard-headed and does not like to admit he is wrong and so this is why we should go on a case by case basis based on evidence for anything man says or thinks is true and this means there is no reason to believe evolution or naturalism are true with no evidence,regardless of what planting a thinks,it applies to anything he thinks is true like naturalism and evolution because no scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves or that matter can pop into existence and form itself on its own into the things that makes up the universe and man,besides infinite regression cannot be broken.

Good I agree with you so why are you believing man say naturalism and evolution are true? As you said man has been wrong so many times and yet here you are doing it.The bible tells us over and over not to believe man over God.Man is prideful and hard-headed and does not like to admit he is wrong and so this is why we should go on a case by case basis based on evidence for anything man says or thinks is true and this means there is no reason to believe evolution or naturalism are true with no evidence,regardless of what planting a thinks,it applies to anything he thinks is true like naturalism and evolution because no scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves or that matter can pop into existence and form itself on its own into the things that makes up the universe and man,besides infinite regression cannot be broken.

Dear abelcainsbrother
I do not say that I believe Prof. Plantinga, only that if we follow his reasoning, that is the logical conclusion.
Regards jonesm