Philosophical Biases
by BradfordTom Gilson authored More sloppy thinking on origins at his blog Thinking Christian. Although written in 2004 Gilson's points are applicable today. He discusses Editorial: Stick to science in school which appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The following quote is from that article:
Simply put, the argument behind intelligent design is that a divine hand caused and shaped life on Earth. In its raw early forms, creationism argued that the Bible myth of a seven-day creation was quite literally true and that humans had been on the planet not much more than a few thousand years. Intelligent design theory is far more sophisticated than that, arguing that perceived flaws in the theory of evolution point to some kind of plan or blueprint for life created by a master mind or spirit.
And that may well be the case. But if it is, it’s a matter of belief, not evidence. The evidence in support of evolution is silent about God. Evolution itself could well be a product of an intelligent design, and the theory may simply explain how God does things. There is certainly nothing in evolutionary theory that shuts out God, something the Catholic Church and other mainstream denominations freely acknowledge. But whether God is involved in evolution is a matter for churches or religion classes, not public school science classes.
The editorial errs in concluding that ID argues "that perceived flaws in the theory of evolution point to some kind of plan or blueprint for life created by a master mind or spirit." Typically the case for ID is greatly oversimplified. The cosmological version of ID cites facts of nature and incorporates them within a rational framework pointing to design. Biological evolution, if a component, is generally a very minor one.
ID linked to biological origins is not, in this writer's view, an evolutionary issue. FLE, of course, is but, rather than focusing on flaws in the ToE, FLE focuses on genomic properties that would facilitate changes. Tom Gilson writes:
Look, folks, the whole purpose of evolutionary theory is to explain how life could have arisen without a God to guide it! They don't state it in such a bald way every time, of course. Usually it's more like this: "We believe matter and energy and chance over time produced life, and we want to understand how." But if you're not excluding God when you say everything came from matter and energy and chance, then what place are you leaving him?
I don't believe Tom is claiming that those who cite evolution in the papers they author or those who teach evolution necessarily intend to exclude God. God is usually not the object of specific references but he does have a larger point. ToE proponents, all too often, perceive the theory as a wedge… er, arrow aimed at the broad concept of divine creation, not just Genesis specifics. Also from Gilson:
How is it possible for evolutionary processes to produce a creature that could think true thoughts about evolutionary processes (or anything at all, for that matter)?
Good question. The answer need not presume the sufficiency of naturalism.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:54 am
It is bizarre how theists like Ken Miller and atheists like Richard Dawkins have that same philosophical bias, is it not?
While this is certainly true in some cases, I wonder how widespread it is. My guess is that pretty much all your contact with ToE proponents is in the context of the creationism/ID debate, and certainly there ToE proponents will be using the ToE to defeat creationism/ID. Is it possible that 90% of ToE proponents do not use the ToE to target creationism, do not get involved in the debate and consequently you are unaware of their existence?
I further suspect that a lot of those ToE proponents who do get involved in the creationism/ID debate do so because they see how creationists are trying to corrupt science (and I would include myself in that). I was brought up in a Christian family, but my parents accepted the ToE even so. For me (and I am therefore guessing a lot of ToE proponents) proving ToE to be true would have little to no impact on the claims of divine creation. I do argue against Christianity occasionally, but I have never and would never use the ToE in such an argument because I do not think it would help at all.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 9, 2008 @ 3:54 am
October 9th, 2008 at 4:00 am
I thought a separate post for this, as it is a completely different topic.
I started out as a single-celled organism, an embryo in my mother. Through a process called "growth" involving a huge number of chemical reactions, I became a creature who "could think true thoughts about evolutionary processes". Rather longer ago, life started out as a single-celled, and though a process called "evolution", again involving a huge number of chemical reactions, a creature appeared who "could think true thoughts about evolutionary processes". I have to confess I do not know how the first of those processes occured, but I am in no doubt that it did. I also do not know how the second process occurred, but given the first did, I can see no reason to suppose the second process is impossible.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 9, 2008 @ 4:00 am
October 9th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Thanks for the link, Bradford. How did you find that old post?
Pixie Again, regarding the question you addressed in your second comment, note that Bradford quoted just one sentence on the topic, so the problem posed in it is not entirely clear. In the blog post from which he quoted there's more, though not much. You can find a better discussion on it here, or an extended version here (PDF).
Comment by TomG — October 9, 2008 @ 6:33 am
October 9th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Why would that be bizarre? I share lots of philosophical biases with atheists I know and I disagree with a lot of the philosophical views of some my Christian friends.
You are right that I would not expect a consistent Christian to agree with a consistent atheist in matters of creation but since when are folks consistent?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2008 @ 7:37 am
October 9th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I read the first 13 pages of the PDF. I have problems with anyone who uses terms like "current evolutionary doctrine" - it highlights their own philosophcal bias. Quote from there:
Plantinga is pondering the evolutionary advantage of accurate belief for Paul. My feeling is that Paul has a belief that tigers are very dangerous, that if he is caught by a tiger it will kill him and that being dead is a bad thing. I think that that sort of belief would be very useful and accurately reflects the real world. I suspect that a general belief that big, fierce animals will eat you if they get the chance is going to aid survival. I suspect that a belief that big, fierce animals should be petted and the best way to pet them is to run away is gong to let you down. Suppose there is nowhere to run to; are your tribe better off fighting it or tickling it? A belief that accurately reflects reality will be far more helpful in new situations.
Where do beliefs come from? I get the impression Plantinga thinks they are inherited, encoded in DNA, and so appear via random mutation, and subject to natural selection. That sounds like nonsense to me. It is the ability to construct beliefs that has evolved in the germline, not the beliefs themselves.
I suggest Paul could learn that tigers are very dangerous, that if he is caught by a tiger it will kill him and that being dead is a bad thing by observing tigers catching their prey. I cannot imagine how Paul might arrive at the conclusion that tigers should be petted. Why would he suppose that the bnest way to pet a tiger is to run away from it? A good cognitive system plus beliefs are helping Paul to deal with his world.
Then there is language. The ability to communicate is fundamental to human survival. One man against a tiger is tiger dinner. Mankind against tigers is tiger almost extiction. Because humans cooperate they can achieve everything we see around us, and language is at the root of cooperation, so improving communication, better language has clear evolutionary advantages. Language involves belief. When I say "tiger" an image appears of a big stripy cat. You have a belief about what the word "tiger" relates to. Communication can only happen if people associate the same concepts - or beliefs - to words. I would guess that that is far easier in a culture when beliefs coincide with reality.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 9, 2008 @ 7:51 am
October 9th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Hi The Pixie,
I think you're making the mistake of focusing completely on the belief. It's not an issue of the actual belief, but the organ that forms the belief. And Plantinga is clear about that, as can be seen when he references cognitive faculties that are functioning properly in order to produce the beliefs that are now in question.
It wouldn't be nonsense to you if you understood what he was saying. And the bolded part shows that you don't have a strong understanding of what he is saying, since he is pretty explicit about this.
To quote him directly:
"My argument has to do with cognitive faculties; memory, reason perception. They are the things by virtue of which we know things about the world. "
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 9, 2008 @ 9:47 am
October 9th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hi again The Pixie…Again (what's the with "Again"),
Because you have an important misunderstanding with Plantinga's position you are unable to recognize that the bolded part is actually what he would be addressing with his argument.
(to requote your statement from above):
You're putting the onus on beliefs, which you're right - if he was doing that that would be kind of foolish. Beliefs aren't inherited genetically.
But this runs aground when we see what Plantinga's main question he was dealing with when formulating his argument:
To quote him:
He's not focusing his aim primarily at the beliefs but at the cognitive faculties; something which are genetically inherited.
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 9, 2008 @ 10:21 am
October 9th, 2008 at 10:46 am
There is an obvious evolutionary benefit to having some degree of knowledge of the natural world. There is an imperfect *correlation* between the accuracy of the internal model and reproductive success.
On the other hand, science is a highly abstracted, community process, and presupposes complex communication and a high order of social organization. Perhaps we should start with "anything at all".
Plantinga is merely making an elaborated zombie-argument. An individual knows subjectively why they run from the tiger. They're fearful (of big teeth, of pain, of the unknown). Other organisms have very similar responses; avoidance, shrieking, burst of energy, physiological changes; so we can reasonably infer (if we can infer anything) that other organisms run from tigers for the same reason. They're afraid.
We can build a reasonably consistent model of the world based only on the reliability of memory. This subjective world not only includes knowledge of the rising and setting Sun, but is full of spiritual impulses, such as the perception of beauty and meaningfulness, and the fear of tigers. Objectivity is socially constructed, is based on sensible experience, depends on communication skills, and allows people to create a model of the world independent of the individual mind. The scientific method is a more exacting extension of these basic principles.
One can be a consistent Philosophical Naturalist and accept that the Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory based on what we mean by "science" and the limitations of human perception and scientific know-how.
Yes, science is deeply and pervasively skeptical. All scientific conclusions are tentative and subject to change. That's not a bug, it's a feature.
No kidding. That's why objectivity requires consistency across multiple observers and the use of instrumentation to minimize (not eliminate), the limitations of individual cognitive processes.
Trust is an attitude of mind. No one can make you trust your memory. You close your eyes not knowing if the world will be gone when you open them. Perhaps you are insane. Perhaps you are hyperskeptical. Or perhaps you believe that the world is made anew with every blink of the eye. So? No one can make you trust. Cover your eyes a thousands times, and a thousand times the world is still there. Peek-a-boo.
But once you ascribe some reliability to your memories, then you will notice certain consistencies in the world. You can even predict the future! The world will still be there when you open your eyes. The Sun will rise and set.
As Bradford suggests, in his railing against "high priests of evolutionary naturalism", Plantinga makes palin his "Philosophical Biases".
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 10:46 am
October 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am
GringoRoyale
Why does Plantinga imagine "Paul" might believe that petting a tiger would be a good thing? I have no idea, but it is so random I was wondering if he thinks it comes from random mutation.
Okay, so what he is saying is that maybe Paul's cognitive faculties have lead him to the belief that petting a tiger is good, and the best way to pet a tiger is to run away. Meanwhile, Peter's cognitive faculties have lead him to the belief that tiger's are very dangerous, and the best way to not get eaten is to run away. I think Peter will survive better because his belief is accurate. There will be new situations arising where Peter and Paul cannot run away. Peter will be able to handle those better if he thinks the tiger is dangerous compared to Paul, who thinks it is cute and cuddly.
I am not to clear how Paul could even come to that conclusion. Peter can observe tiger's eating prey, and see that tigers are dangerous. Perhaps he has seen people mauled by tigers, or talked to people who have seen it. Perhaps he has just seen the claws, the teeth and the size of the creature, and has cognitive faculties that relate well to reality he can hypothesis that the tiger is dangerous.
I think the problem here is that it is very easy to rationalise why Peter will have a belief that tigers are dangerous, and it is easy to see why this gives Peter an advantage over Paul, and so I am left wondering what Plantinga thinks he is talking about.
I originally posted as "The Pixie", but lost my password and the password recovery here would not work, so now "The Pixie Again".
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 9, 2008 @ 10:57 am
October 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am
(Saying they are genetically inherited is a result of cognition.)
Let's look at the standard scientific explanation. We have competing organisms. Some develop senses and reflexes. Some then evolve to build simple inductive reactions, a primitive model that what happened before will happen again, so as to anticipate events. These primitive models are selected for consistency and relevance. Later evolution results in more complex models, from simple modeling all the way to abstraction where symbols represent entire experiences or concepts. Sunshine. Hate. Family. Ambition.
When you close your eyes, can we agree the world will still be there when you open them? If so, the rest is just Plantingan mumbo-jumbo.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 11:16 am
October 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Zach,
pardon me if I ignore you while discussing this with The Pixie (aside from my mention of my intention).
I don't think it really pays to discuss this with you.
Along with comments like this:
which really have no relation to the point of his argument. I think it will just lead to bogging the whole conversation down.
It's not out of attempts to ignore you because of the power of your argument; certainly not that, since The Pixie is voicing stronger and more relevant arguments (with respects to the Plantinga's EAAN).
It's also that I think I'll learn more about the argument and arguments against it as well as hopefully be more open-minded to the criticisms if they aren't being voiced sarcastically and fanatically.
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 9, 2008 @ 11:36 am
October 9th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Religious beliefs are pervasive in human culture, spirituality in human nature. We could possibly consider 'false beliefs' as models of highly chaotic phenomena. For instance, we might credit Cupid's Arrow for poor Romeo's irrational and self-defeating behavior.
Alas poor Romeo! he is already dead; stabbed with a
white wench's black eye; shot through the ear with a
love-song; the very pin of his heart cleft with the
blind bow-boy's butt-shaft
More literally, we are mapping one chaotic model to another. So a shaman ascribes spiritual properties akin to personalities to various herbs. We might think that sacrificing to the gods has no adaptive behavior, but the social organization associated with priests and temples, and the relationship of primitive sciences (such as medicine or astronomy) to religion might well be adaptive. Hence, 'false beliefs', it could be argued, can lead to useful behavior.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 11:50 am
October 9th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Until you die. No more Zachriel. No more Zachriel's peek-a-boo world.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 11:54 am
October 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The Pixie,
really quick…. I'll post something more later.
But this talk regarding beliefs and behaviors: would you accept that beliefs can cause behaviors? That a person can have intention (thoughts that are about something) and that with those intentions the person can act as an agent.
Or, staying in line with naturalism, are beliefs merely epiphenomenalistic?
Key to Plantinga's argument is the relationship between beliefs and behaviors.
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 9, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
You are certainly free to ignore my comment.
My contention is that Plantinga's argument is just a modification of the problem of induction. Closing one's eyes with the expectation (belief) that the world will still be there when they are reopened is the problem of induction. There is no deductive proof of induction.
But if you accept induction, imperfect as human sensation and cognition may be, then Plantinga's argument is not valid. His application of the argument to evolutionary biology (the posited source of this imperfection) is just window-dressing. Hence, my comment would be on-point.
Angels don't cover their eyes.
—
Zachriel, angel who rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member
AMF, Angelic Motive ForcePushing planets on celestial spheres — one epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
MODERATOR: There is no indication of when a comment is stuck in the queue. It just seemingly disappears. I rewrote it, and it disappeared again. Please unstick the latest version. Thanks!
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Tom Gilson:
I was visiting your blog and hopping around from post to post. I suppose a random landing is the best explanation.
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
zachriel, you wrote,
Not that kind of skepticism, zachriel. That's not what Plantinga means. He is referring to a "deep and pervasive skepticism," the sort that goes beyond scientific tentativeness: skepticism about knowing anything at all.
But Plantinga is saying that PN includes a much greater limitation of human perception and scientific know-how. He is saying that PN implies a limit below the threshold level where one could even consider the truth of PN. Here it is at its barest and briefest: PN affirms a world wherein reliable, reasoned affirmations are impossible.
Plantinga is decidedly not saying that reasoned affirmations are possible, or that naturalists don't make them. He is saying that when they make them, they are in the very process doing something that their worldview cannot explain.
Again, you are understanding a term incorrectly. Reliability in measurement (as commonly used in the sciences) is assured through the use of multiple means of measurement and multiple observers. Plantinga is not talking about measurement, however, like some kind of Pearson correlation of results obtained through multiple methodologies. He's talking reliability in a qualitative sense. Assuming we share the sense that in general, we all have the ability to form true beliefs on some sort of consistent basis, can PN explain where that ability comes from?
And again, the way you are understanding "trust" has little to do with the sense in which Plantinga was using it.
Having detected a pattern here–that you are consistently missing what Plantinga actually was saying–I think I'll break off here and encourage you to re-read it for the sake of understanding what he was actually saying. Then if you have criticisms, by all means come back and share them. But to criticize what he was not saying is not a very effective way to criticize what he was.
*******************
And now–after writing the above–I see GringoRoyale's 11:36 am response. I think he's on the right track. I'll post this anyway, and then follow his lead by not pursuing it further.
Comment by TomG — October 9, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
What relevance is that after that last time you close your eyes?
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
And what historic adaptations have equipped Zachriel with a capacity to know the truth of his assertion?
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
In other words, does the human brain have the power to make true inferences, to "see truths", or is it merely multi-level dog logic. Methodological Naturalism is unconcerned with the issue. The adherents of Philosophical Naturalism destroy their credentials to claim anything more than the powers of dog logic, with an extended ability to pile inference upon pragmatic inference, but no claim to "seeing truths." The scientific method basically is Methodological Naturalism. Philosophical Naturalism is utterly outside of science and irrelevant to it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
In fairness to Zachriel, I've not seen any statements from him that lead me to conclude he's a philosophical materialist. He could be a theist for all I know. But, admittedly, I don't read everything posted on TT.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
That argument didn't change with Darwin, yet Plantinga bases his Defeat of Naturalism on the conjunction of Naturalism with Evolutionary Doctrine. The Theory of Evolution merely posits plausible mechanisms for the origin of humans with a number of traits, including fallibility. Stripping away the veneer, we are left with an argument about how can fallible humans reach infallible conclusions. They can't.
Plantinga says "Naturalism alone may (or may not) be tenable, and the same goes for the view that we have evolved by way of the mechanisms to which contemporary evolutionary theory directs our attention; the conjunction of these two propositions, however, can't rationally be accepted."
Plantinga argues that atheist mortals can't completely trust their judgment. They can't. But neither can theist mortals.
Humans were known to be fallible before Darwin. However, the Theory of Evolution actually *explains* why cognition is just good enough and not perfect. Why perception may be clouded, but sufficient.
In the former sense, the Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory. The latter sense does not apply to science, or even to most of human experience.
We can only have approximate knowledge of the world. Even the most obvious facts are not obvious to some people. That's why science has developed objective measures. But even then it's not infallible. The Sun will rise in the East. Yes, we can agree. But it's not an infallible truth. It's an induction from experience. As such it is subject to uncertainty.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Gringo Royale
I believe that belief causes (at least in part) behaviour, for example, that particular belief is causing the specific behave of typing this sentence. I still hold to my naturalism, as I see no reason to invoke the supernatural in that process (though I reject materialism).
TomG
They are lots of things that are not explained. That does not make them so. I think Plantinga is making the stronger claim that the supernatural is necessary to reasoning. I have yet to see any good argument to suppose the ability to reason could not evolve, and indeed I can see reason to suppose that it would, in that it would confer a survival advantage, as I said before.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 9, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Plantinga is saying something more. According to one wordlview (unguided evolution) neither group can trust their judgement. That would not hold for the divine causative paradigm, specifically the version indicating that humans are made in the image of God. This latter view puts knowledge of truth on a firm foundation.
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Zach
You seem to not understand at all the point that Plantinga is making. Let me try and help
Suppose there are two machines one programmed to solve math problems and one programmed to simply reproduce itself.
Which one would you turn to if you had a tough arithmetic question?
Now suppose the machine that’s purpose was simply reproducing suddenly began to claim that it could do complex algebra would you trust it?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Hi The Pixie,
I don't believe that you have grounds to maintain both propositions: beliefs can truly (at least in part) cause behavior by virtue of their content AND naturalism is true (at least viable with respects to your 1st proposition.
Plantinga puts it this way with his argument. If you're holding a belief in your head, that belief will be of two kinds of properties:
The 1st property is purely biochemical (along the lines of the amount of neurons involved, their rate of firing, etc…).
The 2nd property would be the beliefs propositional content.
If a belief has an impact on behavior, given naturalism and evolution, it is solely by virtue of that beliefs biochemical properties and not because of the 2nd property; the beliefs non-physical / propositional content.
A belief could just have likely had any other propositional content tied to it but if that belief truly does impact behavior, regardless of what propositional content we tie to that belief, it's the 1st property that is having an impact on behavior. And that 1st property being the beliefs biochemical make-up.
Peter and Paul both see a lion and behave the same, not by virtue of their beliefs propositional content but by virtue of the beliefs biochemical arrangement. So let's say you're right, Peter (from our removed independent perspective) has a more reasonable belief behind his actions. Paul's reasons are not as reasonable (from our vantage). But so be it, all that matters is the survival value of the biochemical arrangement - you can tie whatever propositional content to it.
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 9, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Pixie:
No he’s not. His argument is simply about purposeful design verses evolution. Can we count on an the ability of our minds to do something they were not designed to do?
But must it? If it's not nessary for evolitionary success the burden of proof is on the one who claims that it did.
Maybe simple monkey reasoning but not the kind of complex stuff that scientific theory making entails.
I see reason to believe that that kind of in-depth thinking could to be a hindrance to passing ones genes to the next generation.
One only has to go to any high school to see that it’s not the philosophers that get the chicks.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hi The Pixie
I think he's making that case (that the supernatural is necessary) to be able to account for our ability to reason, rationalize to trust our beliefs (their propositional content).
Most of the times he mentions his EAAN he brings up Aquinas and Aquinas's statement about man being created in God's image.
We typically view the universe as being nonrational (not to be confused with irrational), but there exists this trait with in mankind to be rational, to have intention, to have beliefs with propositional content. Where did these abilities come from? You have something in the effect that is absent in the cause. It needs to be accounted for. If it can't be accounted for then it should be waved off as illusory.
Comment by GringoRoyale — October 9, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
fmm:
But if you go to university, you'll see otherwise.
Comment by Raevmo — October 9, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I wonder if others see this as encapsulating Plantinga's argument.
(I assume by the reproducing machine, you mean one which has evolved over generations, and has replaced variations less capable of reproduction.)
Let's consider the Designed Machine. What makes you think that it will give correct answers? Many machines brought to the open market have design flaws that produce erroneous results. It's only because of your experience with these Designed Machine and the shared experiences of millions of others that you consider them to be reliable. Indeed, it is quite possible that the best available calculators could be unreliable by nature, perhaps if they were mechanical rather than electronic. Or maybe there's a lot of fraud or sloppy workmanship. Try Consumer Reports.
Now, let's consider the Evolved Machine. Curiously, they resemble humans in many respects. Well, again, we wouldn't know. Perhaps these Evolved Machines are common, and have a reputation for reliability. Perhaps not. Maybe they're bad at algebra, but good at softball. Or like to gossip. Only experience would determine this. And if they're like humans, they might out-and-out lie. Try Facebook.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Raevmo
Maybe they get more chicks in a segregated environment when the dumb brutes already have jobs and are busy raising their broods.
You would have to agree advanced smarts does not necessarily translate to more offspring. The uneducated win this hands down.
Those who spend their time thinking very deeply are close to being an evolutionary dead end. I’ve seen no reason to believe that it has not always been that way at least to some extent
Remember I’m talking about the kind of smarts that it takes to formulate something as complex as MET not what it takes to kill a rabbit with a stick.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Here's a logical follow-up question. fmm, in your view are there any evolutionary dead ends at TT based on the standards you lay out?
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Organisms evolved sensation and reflex. Some then evolved to build simple inductive reactions, a primitive model that what happened before will happen again, so as to anticipate events. In more advanced organisms (and not just in humans), we have internal modeling of the world, a mind. This allows the organism to manipulate the environment in abstraction in order to solve problems. In some social mammals (e.g. apes, dolphins, elephants), this even includes the ability to model one's own self.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I would think that is extremely doubtful. Humans are social organisms, and prosper as groups. Even primitive hominids probably had their thinkers who specialized in shamanism or tool-making.
Sneezy, Sleepy, Dopey, Doc, Happy, Bashful, Grumpy.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
If naturalism is true, there's no reason to have confidence in an idea of the "perceived truth" of naturalism, since the concept of naturalism is a mere product of mind. There may be good pragmatic reasons to assume its truth, but there is no reason to be confident of that assumption. Otherwise one has the unenviable position of demonstrating how irrational processes led to a brain capable of "seeing truth", in this case, the truth of naturalism, and not merely having advanced inferential dog logic, which is merely pragmatic.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I don't think you guys quite get the angel thing. Angels are created beings. Angels never avert their eyes.
This is a different argument than Plantinga makes. He says Naturalism is inconsistent with Evolution.
What is the distinction between having a pragmatic reason and to believe in something? A pragmatic Naturalist would assume pragmatism is sufficient, absent new information.
But perhaps you hit on a distinction I hadn't considered. Does a Naturalist have to be dogmatic?
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Hi Gringo Royale
If a belief is written in a book, then that belief has a purely graphic property - lots of black squiggles - but it also contains a concept. A computer can contain data that is purely electronic, and yet at the same time has mean, and can cause the computer to behave in a certain way.
So if a book has an impact on your behavior, that is due solely to the arrangeent of ink, and not to the concepts expressed, right? Or would you be willing to agree with me that a book and a computer can contain information at a higher level than ink and electrons? And therefore a head can contain beliefs at a higher level than biochemistry. They all need their respective infrastructure, but none of them need anything supernatural.
Brad started a thread recently about top-down control which is kind of what this is. Thought processes are all biochemical. When you decide to do something, that thought process causes biochemical changes in your brain, which in turn cause biochemical changes in nerves and so on. Think about the computer again. It is processing data, and it decides it needs to access the harddrive. How can that possibly be? Software is only an arrangement of electrons, and so (by your reasoning) the program cannot cause behavior, and should be unable to start the harddrive spinning. Of course, this is not the case.
If we are gods, then yes, we can do that. In the absence of gods, Peter and Paul are obliged to formulate their beliefs another way. I suggest the best way is by observation and inference. If Peter can reliably observe the world, and make logical deductions about its nature, he will survive rather longer than Paul, who apparently cannot. I do not understand how you can argue it might be otherwise.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 9, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
The difference is, your initial cell had all the "programming" in place from your parents to develop into what you became. Humans beget humans, and dogs beget dogs, so it's reasonable to conclude that there is a "dog programming" and a "human programming." Nobody knows how the original replicating life-form came into being, and what programming it had. Nobody knows if telic input was required at whatever point to get life to the eventuality of Human Reason. Maybe it did, and maybe it didn't, but human reproduction is irrelevant to that question.
It's how they came to "occur" is the question. Even YECs accept they "occured."
Non-sequitur. Unless you understand how both processes occurred, you cannot know if they occurred from the same or similar (a-telic) process.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
fmm
Surely the test here is whether it works or not. I think we have good evidence that we can trust the ability of our minds, regardless of where they came from.
If we were starting from scratch on a new planet, then no, there is no reason it must evolve. This planet went nearly 4 billion years without it evolving. However, given where we are now, then it would seem that evolution has done it.
I am happy for us to agree that at this stage we do not know one way of the other. Of course, I am on the side of the prevailing paradigm, so that is easy for me to say, but the reason modern evolution theory is the prevailing paradigm is that it is so succesful. If you want to use Plantinga's argument to defeat evolution, then I am afraid the burden of proof is on you.
Why? Can you explain to me what the difference is? Where the boundary is between the simple reasoning that could result from a natural process and that which could not? How about the everyday thinking, like deciding what to wear, and driving a car; would you say that that fell on the "monkey reasoning" side or the "scientific theory making"? Do dolphins have te level of reasoning that only God can give? How would you go about finding out?
This may seem facious, but I have this suspicion that you arbitrarily draw the line to neatly ringfence mankind because that happens to fit your religious beliefs. I find it odd that you use "scientific theory making" as your gold standard; something only a very small fraction of the human race have ever done.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 9, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Bradford:
lets see you’ve got a bunch of folks who have fun spending their time pondering the plausibility of frontloading and the existence of the moral law instead of how to get lucky at the dance club
Do you have to even ask?
Zach:
all the more reason to beat up the geek with the big idea.
deep thinking shaman don't tend to have big families look it up it interferes with the juju.
The garden variety type are just knowledgeable about the best roots for tooth ache.
Making a tomahawk is a different kind of activity than calculus.
toolmaking and shamanism are not deep thinking.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 9, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
By "believe in", I mean it in the Greek sense of pistis, to actually trust, to put oneself on the line for it, to apparently risk because it is held to be really true, because its truth is "seen" and "evident" to ones self. And the object of trust at issue here is one's own thought processes.
For example, consider the mathematical axiom: if A = B, and B = C, then A = C - it is something that you probably put in the category of being "really true" in a way you don't for common descent, gravity, or the rising sun. For the latter, we could be in a virtual world that is paused, reconfigured, and restarted, and suddenly the earth rotates the other way, disconfirming our expectation. But with regards to that mathematical axiom, it is impossible to conceive any world that it would not hold true without changing the nature of the axiom. It appears that humans can "see" the "truth" of it.
A thorough-going philosophical naturalist cannot claim that humans have the power to "see truths" without accepting the burden to demonstrate how irrational processes can produce truth-seeing minds. Without such a demonstration, at best, humans could only be seen as having a selected advantage of being programmed to "see the truth" of that axiom, and it may only correspond to a temporary condition in our corner of the universe. How would we know? If that is true, then our "insight" is an illusion. It's no qualitatively superior than inductive dog logic. But that leaves us with the idea we have about "insight" and "perceiving truth."
So then, if all we possess is pragmatic inference, how can a philosophical naturalist trust his own view of naturalism, except in a merely pragmatic sense? But wait. If it's merely a pragmatic sense, then he's not a philosophical naturalist. See the problem? If the PN really believes in philosophical naturalism, then the PN has to make an exception for his own thinking regarding his naturalism, as if he were outside the system, as if his thinking processes were capable of a genuine insight into nature, divorce from the sea of irrational processes that led to him. You can't be a pragmatist and a non-pragmatist at the same time regarding the nature of nature. MN is agnostic about realities outside of purview of science. PN makes, as C.S. Lewis calls, "the crowning audacity of the huge negative", such as, "this universe is all there is, and all there ever will be" (Sagan.) Heh, how the hell could Sagan know that?
No. But then such a one is not a philosophical naturalist, but merely a methodological one, the latter being a consistent view.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
So you're saying we're nerds.
That's OK. I once resisted the thought but have come to peace with myself and now own up to my natural inclinations. I don't act nerdish although I may have in the past. Comes with experience. In any case I managed to pass on my genes. It does not look like I or many others in this forum are evolutionary dead ends. There is hope. What the heck, Raevmo is getting married and his fiancee is pregnant. She is also a theist. Imagine that. She must be a saint to put up with you Raevmo. 
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
"Meaning" is ultimately a conscious perception. And since we don't know if consciousness is supernatural or not, this issue cannot be resolved presently. If consciousness is indeed supernatural, then of course, there would be a big difference between what information is to a computer, and what information is to consciousness, by definition. (And don't forget, computers and books are artifacts of human consciousness first. Computers don't make and program themselves without human initialization, and books don't write themselves.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
fmm: toolmaking and shamanism are not deep thinking.
Indeed. How do we get from a chimp-like ancestor to we humans, who sit around and contemplate nature, evolution, reality, truth, music, philosophy, science, our own thought processes, etc. Doesn't sound like a very plausible or efficient selection output. Bigger teeth? That would be helpful. Stronger muscles. Sure. More efficient fuel usage. That hits the spot. But what does it take to go from chimp mind to resource hungry human philosopher, scientist, musician, craftsman, technocrat, "master of nature"? What kind and how many variations does it take to make a human brain from a chimps?
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 9, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
No. It's the transitive axiom of equality. It's an assumption. We usually agree to this assumption because it appears to reflect something about the world, but we can construct maths with other axioms, other maths that may better reflect other worlds.
Modern humans, who happen to often confuse their basic education with intrinsic knowledge. For instance, on this very forum, I've heard it declared that it's obvious that the Earth moves.
I think you mean "non-rational" processes. As I mentioned above, abstraction is an adaptive trait. It allows the mind to explore various solutions to problems before executing them. With humans, symbols (such as vocalizations) are assigned to these abstractions leading to even higher levels of thought. These symbols allow one to reflect about issues such as Naturalism.
If someone only ever experiences the natural world, then they might very well conclude that Nature is all there is. This is the claim we call Philosophical Naturalism. Methodological Naturalism is *not* a claim. It's a working assumption.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If humans prosper as groups, it would not usually be a good idea to disable or kill the geek with ideas, or the one who helps the hunters devise the best strategy to kill the lion terrorizing the village, or the one who stitches the warriors back together or gives them the medicine to assuage their pain or the magic to give them courage.
For that matter, loyalty might be rewarded regardless of other contributions to the group. Or persistence. Or courage. Or the poetic memorization of the tribe's history. Each trait being important in different situations.
Perhaps you are a solitary creature with no knowledge of human group dynamics. However, your example does point to an instance of group selection.
I'm not sure where you got that idea. I am quite certain that some toolmakers thought very deeply about their craft and were consequently highly prized. Some were probably geniuses, leading to major technological advances.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Consider that for much of human history, there was limited specialization. Hunting probably allowed the first burst of specialization due to toolmaking (stone, bone, wood, fibre). But only with agriculture did many full-time professions develop.
Comment by Zachriel — October 9, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I think that this was the most interesting quote from Planting’s “Book and Culture” article:
In other words, if I understand Plantinga here correctly, to believe that our beliefs have a rational and logical basis we need to believe that the universe and reality as a whole, in some ultimate sense, have a rational, logical basis. But if reality itself is fundamentally rational and logical then that also implies that there is some ultimate meaning and purpose to it all. Doesn’t it?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 9, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
October 9th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
John A. Designer quoting Plantinga's qoute of Darwin:
It makes you wonder whether beings who were that much brighter than humans would trust our convictions.
Comment by Bradford — October 9, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
October 10th, 2008 at 4:07 am
kornbelt
of course there are differences. Nevertheless the process embryo -> human does illustrate how a naturalistic process that is all just biochemistry can lead from a non-thinking organism to an organism capable of having beliefs, with good cognitive functions.
It is whether they occurred that is at issue. If you can explain to me how God engineered cognitive faculties, you would have a good argument, but I somehow doubt that.
Nevertheless, the computer at one level is just a bunch of electrons and at another level is processing information. It is nonsense to claim the computer is not processing information, or that that information cannot determine the behavior of the computer, just because the information is merely an arrangement of electron.
I believe it is equally nonsense to claim that human consciousness is an illusion or that human consciousness cannot determine behaviour, just because the consciousness is merely an arrangement of chemicals.
A lot of what you describe is about cultural change, about technology and shared knowledge, and not Darwinian evolution at all. Mankind appeared 2 million years ago, and I would imagine first man did not "sit around and contemplate nature, evolution, reality, truth, music, philosophy, science, our own thought processes, etc". The role of the evolutionist is to explain how first man appeared, capable of using very simple tools and speech. It is the archeologists and historians who have to explain the jump to a humans who "sit around and contemplate nature, evolution, reality, truth, music, philosophy, science, our own thought processes, etc"
John A Designer
Why?
Bradford
Do you trust my convictions? I suspect we trust the convictions of other sentient beings where they coincide with our own. That would include trusting monkeys, or superior beings trusting us.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 10, 2008 @ 4:07 am
October 10th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Bradford:
Using typical Darwinian logic I could say that we are not as bright as I thought
Zach:
None of these activities are deep thinking if the geek spent his time pondering the meaning of life or the fundamental properties of the lions poop you might have an argument.
I have no doubt that some early toolmakers were geniuses at their craft but unless they spent their time dwelling on the tool as metaphor for the workingman’s plight in a capitalist society it would be irrelevant to our discussion
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 10, 2008 @ 7:17 am
October 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I can only think, ironically, that you have not thought very deeply about your position.
Comment by Zachriel — October 10, 2008 @ 7:39 am
October 10th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I don't think that's quite Plantinga's argument. He is saying that if humans evolved, they are fallible, so can't claim to have infallible knowledge of anything. (As I pointed out above, Evolution actually *explains* why cognition is just good enough and not perfect. Why perception may be clouded, but sufficient.)
Of course, a Philosophical Naturalist only has to take the position that their Natualism is tentative, as many do. I'm sure you've heard one or two at least demand you produce angels and they would happily change their minds. Meanwhile, they remain Philosophical Naturalists. I suppose dogmatic Philosophical Naturalism might fit Plantinga's claim. I suggested that above, but no one has pursued that line of argument.
As to your claim,
If puppies are warm and cuddly, does it follow the universe is warm and cuddly?
Comment by Zachriel — October 10, 2008 @ 7:55 am
October 10th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I couldn't agree less.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 10, 2008 @ 9:28 am
October 10th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Zachriel:
No, "irrational" works just fine: "Not endowed with reason."
You didn't answer my question: What kind and how many variations does it take to make a human brain from a chimp's (or chimp-like) ?
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 10, 2008 @ 9:39 am
October 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Zachriel: If puppies are warm and cuddly, does it follow the universe is warm and cuddly?
Part of it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 10, 2008 @ 9:40 am
October 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Yes, human conception is a "naturalistic process", but it's one that is pre-endowed with a vast amount of software. We know that the software is passed on from parents to children. There's no question of the proximate source of the software for a given human. What do we know about the origin of the software of the original life-form? That's the point. Human conception tells us nothing about that. It's an invalid analogy. It's like saying, "because a computer running Microsoft Word are naturalistic processes it is conceivable that M$ Word came about by itself without telic input, even though I cannot demonstrate how."
I cannot, and am not even interested in the issue. But it doesn't require some theistic counter argument to show that it is unreasonable to have confidence in an analogy between human conception and abiogenesis just because both are (assumedly) naturalistic processes.
Who said anything to the contrary? The point is, computers are intelligently designed entities.
I agree. It's the source of that arrangement that is at issue, and the nature of consciousness, among other things.
While it's true that societies and cultures have differences, just try to "culturally change" a chimp so that it can contemplate nature, evolution, reality, truth, music, philosophy, science, our own thought processes, to the (vastly superior) level of yourself. There's more to it than education and culture.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 10, 2008 @ 10:02 am
October 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Do you "agree less" with it being an axiom? Or do you "agree less" that it appears to reflect something about the world? Or do you "agree less" that we can construct other maths?
We do know quite a bit about the overall genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. It would be somewhat less than that.
Comment by Zachriel — October 10, 2008 @ 10:04 am
October 10th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Or they might conclude not. Humans are endowed with the ability to go either way on this issue.
That's right.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 10, 2008 @ 10:09 am
October 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I couldn't agree less that it's "an assumption" contra an insight about our universe, and that you can "construct different maths", i.e, change the axiom, without changing the nature of the axiom, which would make it a different axiom.
Still no answer.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 10, 2008 @ 10:15 am
October 10th, 2008 at 10:22 am
So you reject Plantinga's argument, that Philosophical Naturalism and Evolution are inconsistent.
As you said, the kind of variation is genetic. I provided an upper limit to the question "how many". Are you asking for the precise number and order of genetic mutations?
Comment by Zachriel — October 10, 2008 @ 10:22 am
October 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I said, "We usually agree to this assumption {transitive axiom of equality} because it appears to reflect something about the world."
That last statement doesn't make any sense. Yes, you can "construct different maths", but changing an axiom changes the axiom.
Comment by Zachriel — October 10, 2008 @ 10:28 am
October 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
kornbelt888
Ah, so just an argument from ignorance. We do not know, therefore it did not happen. Or am I missing something?
I do not mean it as an analogy as such, but as evidence that a naturalistic process can produce a conscious, reasoning entity where previously there was not.
If I had to choose between the hypothesis that MS Word had evolved or was made by God, I would tend to the former. Which would you favour?
And yet if I cannot explain the mechanisms behind the evolution of cognitive faculties you seem to think you have scored a point. Just a few lines earlier you said: "What do we know about the origin of the software of the original life-form? That's the point."
We have two competing theories. Naturalistic evolution or divine creation. For the form, you insist that "we know about the origin of the software of the original life-form", and I see you are demanding an answer from Zach about the the differences between chimps and humans. For the latter you are "not even interested in the issue". That might be acceptable if you were promoting the former, but comes across as double standards if you are promoting the latter.
You interrupted a discussion with Gringo Royale. It was he who said to the contrary, and you really need to go back to that discussion to see what the point is. Or not, as you and I apparently agree.
I am not saying we are the same as chimps. Of course there is a difference, and that difference has allowed us to do all those thing. But a lot of that comes down to the ability to communicate, to express ideas., which allows individuals to add to a collective body of knowledge. The job of biologists is to explain how an individual has the ability to make his or her small c