tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2605463137438002585..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Schliesser on the Evolutionary Argument against NaturalismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger434125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77349972168015711162013-01-29T01:04:50.714-08:002013-01-29T01:04:50.714-08:00Have fun y'all. May you come out of Plantinga&...<i>Have fun y'all. May you come out of Plantinga's confusion, sometime, somehow. </i><br /><br />Well, when you come to grips with what Plantinga is saying, that'll be progress.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79103972666564704652013-01-28T14:41:11.586-08:002013-01-28T14:41:11.586-08:00The confusion ... he never showed to be true XD.The confusion ... he never showed to be true XD.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82302085404797662372013-01-28T06:46:14.323-08:002013-01-28T06:46:14.323-08:00Eduardo said: "I think this conversation is o...Eduardo said: "I think this conversation is over, we haven't really reached any consensus"<br /><br />Yep, we're in agreement there. <br /><br />Have fun y'all. May you come out of Plantinga's confusion, sometime, somehow. <br /><br />I'm outta here.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Yairיאיר רזקhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15798134654972572485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81878067544975973072013-01-27T17:34:12.762-08:002013-01-27T17:34:12.762-08:00And while we're at it, let's find out why ...And while we're at it, let's find out why naturalists use reason as some kind of Invisible Theistic Mind-God.machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21963383582519347682013-01-27T17:20:38.123-08:002013-01-27T17:20:38.123-08:00It doesn't matter how naturalism is defined.
...It doesn't matter how naturalism is defined.<br /><br />The crucial question is: How do you break out of those explanatory and/or determining factors of your own version of naturalism, to assess naturalism itself, and assign to it the status of being true?<br /><br />In other words, how does any version of naturalism whatsoever get meaningfully labeled "true", in any sense beyond the status of being merely the product of those explanatory and/or determining factors that define naturalism?machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88686315747042933422013-01-27T10:22:03.860-08:002013-01-27T10:22:03.860-08:00Hrfan
"For true beliefs to undergo positive s...<br />Hrfan<br />"For true beliefs to undergo positive selection, all that is required is that they are positively correlated with pro-survival behaviour. Byproduct selection of correlated characteristics is widely documented within evolutionary biology (see for example research on biological spandrels). This is in fact a major unaddressed flaw in the EAAN."<br /><br />Natural selection cannot select beliefs.<br />The DNA codes for proteins, not for mental states.<br /><br />But, even if it could select for mental states that still undercuts your view. Because, in principle, those mental states wouldn't be selected because they conferred truth but only because they confer a survival advantage.<br />If you're going to maintain that only true beliefs confer a survival advantage you better be willing to back that up with a lengthy tome; because that is one pretty large connection you need to establish.Tim Lambertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47823346765259547872013-01-25T19:25:32.982-08:002013-01-25T19:25:32.982-08:00Now that is a good point Mr green... wow 1 post, a...Now that is a good point Mr green... wow 1 post, and you did more than anybody ... in 1 post XD.<br /><br />But so if we can come up with all sort of alternatives what exactly is missing to turn those into worrisome for real???<br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29562074381318004062013-01-25T18:54:03.490-08:002013-01-25T18:54:03.490-08:00Anonymous: I am amused at how effortlessly everyon...Anonymous: <i>I am amused at how effortlessly everyone seems to miss the point.<br />Evolution does not guarantee anything. What it does is make certain things more likely.</i><br /><br />It amuses me less, but this argument does seem to inspire an awful lot of point-missing. Of course, "evolution" doesn't make anything more or less likely per se; it doesn't <b>do</b> anything. There's no "force of evolution" that moves stuff around, it's a description of how things play out. <i>If</i> correct beliefs increase survival, then they'll spread. And if <i>incorrect</i> beliefs increase survival, then they will spread instead [or as well]. The fact that we can think up scenarios that make the former possible gives us no ground to think that it must predominate. To do that, we'd need some additional facts. Plantinga simply points out that the theist has additional such premises to draw on where the naturalist doesn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54281570758370518992013-01-25T18:48:29.878-08:002013-01-25T18:48:29.878-08:00Anonymous: Actually, you'd also have to say th...Anonymous: <i>Actually, you'd also have to say that quite a lot of evolutionary theory has been advanced and justified by creationists. Brother Mendel alone would suffice to get quite a lot of the project regarded as 'built on creationist theories' if you want to play that game.</i><br /><br />Indeed. If "creationist" isn't the most abused term, it's only because "evolution" gets abused more. On any natural, etymological meaning of creation+ist, almost everyone is a creationist, and it has nothing to do with evolution one way or the other. But in present fact, the most reliable meaning that can be gotten out of the word is that a lot of point-missing is about to follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14765127069767909542013-01-25T18:47:11.818-08:002013-01-25T18:47:11.818-08:00BLS: IIRC, Plantinga says its unlikely, not imposs...BLS: <i>IIRC, Plantinga says its unlikely, not impossible. But that's my issue with it, I want to know how he arrived at that conclusion. How unlikely, exactly?</i><br /><br />It has to be "low or inscrutable" because the alternative is that it has to be high and we know it. But that means saying that evolution <i>has</i> to produce creatures with reliable faculties, which makes no sense for an "undirected" process. Of course, if evolution is directed (whatever form that might take), for example if it is controlled by God, then that's perfectly consistent. But evolution can't be known likely to work that way for no reason at all, which is the predicament the evolutionary naturalist finds himself in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30415492601763882892013-01-25T18:02:10.461-08:002013-01-25T18:02:10.461-08:00I mean, what I got from what you said was... oh we...I mean, what I got from what you said was... oh well Eduardo what you just did was IN VAIN! If it was me, I better off just shut up XD.<br /><br />I mean I wish I could just come out when I felt there is some nice talk to be had and I will learn stuff or teach something... BUT errrr, I don't think you can let such behavior go unchecked as if it was okay ... =_=, I so I keep trying, but I agree, it is in vain no doubt.<br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71985818694883907542013-01-25T16:45:49.260-08:002013-01-25T16:45:49.260-08:00Eduardo said...
"DNW
Whether I was ...Eduardo said...<br /><br /> "DNW<br /><br /> Whether I was someone so trusty of my reason... I would pretty much stop posting after what you said XD."<br /><br /><br />LOL You would stop posting if you were me? Or if you were you?<br /><br /><br />" If I understood you correctly "<br /><br /><br />I think what's been highlighted in this swirling debate Eduardo is not just the fact that there needed to be a certain amount of clarification of terms, and agreement on precisely what was being argued. That I think, and somewhat remarkably, given the heat that has been generated, is now conceded by most participants with a certain attitude of good will. <br /><br />What's equally interesting to me however, is that some simply appear to have no real interest in that project at all, viewing it as futile in principle: as an effort to bring something irreducibly out of focus to "standard" reason, into focus.<br /><br />Thus, what looks to me, or I suppose to you or Yair (despite your disagreements) like antinomies or self-refutingly incoherent lines of argument, are simply of very little interest to those materialists whose aims are not so much to understand reality as a whole as to gain mastery over some portion of it.<br /><br />I think that we all learned of that dichotomy in school in our first survey philosophy courses. But the lesson fades with time, and we assume that everyone values coherence in the same way, and so we get into these peculiarly disconnected arguments.<br /><br />The doctrinaires do occasionally respond to charges of intellectual incoherence of course. But it's mainly when they perceive that the charge or fall-out from it will spread widely enough to threaten their egos or authority by making them look stupid. Otherwise they just don't care.<br /><br />To some degree they are just doing what Marx did, by ruling "the question" itself out of court. Trouble for them is that they haven't the power, at least yet, to keep it out.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27243543351610668542013-01-25T15:31:32.599-08:002013-01-25T15:31:32.599-08:00DNW
Whether I was someone so trusty of my reason....DNW<br /><br />Whether I was someone so trusty of my reason... I would pretty much stop posting after what you said XD.<br /><br />If I understood you correctlyEduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87992632572262854122013-01-25T13:35:03.094-08:002013-01-25T13:35:03.094-08:00The problem I think is that he is not a guy with e...The problem I think is that he is not a guy with extensive work on neurons which is what a naturalist claim to be a belief or related to a belief. So what he does is study relations between beliefs and behavior because he thinks that is where things will end up in the discussion.<br /><br />For instance, if a belief is non existence then it will fall in option number 1, it belief is a pattern that rises during a firing of a neuron then it will maybe be a relation of the option 2.<br /><br />So really you don't really need the actual structures that exist simply because we are pressuposing naturalism and naturalism is not compatible with any possible structures.<br /><br />So that is why he never uses examples, simply because you don't really need them.<br /><br />About #46, he is simply trying to prove that a belief that creates behavior "using" it's structure and it's content and it is an adaptation, it helps the creature to live on and reproduce, may just be false. You don't have to have accurate beliefs to generate the right action.<br /><br />The argument could be beaten if someone could come up within naturalism (Depends on how you define naturalism) a new form of relation that eliminates false beliefs and make false belief way more likely to be chosen. Basically somehow the systems that created the structures in the past and the structures that are working now must choose within that landscape the correct beliefs.<br /><br />But I think the real problem is that naturalism is just poorly defined, so instead of using the definition of naturalism and starting with naturalism makes way more sense to analyse the argument, see what scenarios leads to the destruction of their own beliefs and which ones don't and see if any of those match what we think is naturalism (Yeah I quite literally saying that we for all I know may have different definitions of what naturalism is)<br /><br />The chain of thought is quite simple, and it surely won't give the same answer all the time.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52222824859423872362013-01-25T13:19:36.185-08:002013-01-25T13:19:36.185-08:00I think this conversation is over, we haven't ...I think this conversation is over, we haven't really reached any consensus but the way things are going I think it might more profittable to just analyse the arguments ourselves. <br /><br />I mean it seems to me that Anon thinks it is absurd that he can not use everyday experience as a counter argument, after all it seems he believes that beliefs are just abstract ideas, in the realm of guesses about the world. Hrafn thought the argument was bad because he smelled a rat... Yair is hell bent on proving that the argument tries to show something that some bit of scientific research can show to be wrong because you know... doing experiment is pressuposing naturalism, so any correlation a scientist find or any idea a scientist can cook up WILL AUTOMATICALLY be part of naturalism! We all here agree to disagree to that.<br /><br />Seriously perhaps RS was the only who said something of substance about the problem, as usual he always has some pretty strong things to say...Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67252778573192250762013-01-25T13:16:41.965-08:002013-01-25T13:16:41.965-08:00Eduardo,
I read your summary - you did a lot of w...Eduardo,<br /><br />I read your summary - you did a lot of work there, thanks. I lose the argument at #46, though - the examples are so silly that it's hard for me to credit them with relevance. It would've been nice if he had thought of more evolutionarily relevant/realistic examples. Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66428545876996008322013-01-25T12:38:56.074-08:002013-01-25T12:38:56.074-08:00Anon you are supposing that beliefs are only abstr...Anon you are supposing that beliefs are only abstract ideas, but we are saying that beliefs are anu deliberance of our cognitive systems. Seriously I said that 300+ posts in the past ahhahhah.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90404311028433269062013-01-25T12:30:14.128-08:002013-01-25T12:30:14.128-08:00There os another way: you can just say that everyt...There os another way: you can just say that everything in the world is wrong in terms of percentage.... No wait.... This wouldnt warrant naturalism too forget it.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18297162542521103302013-01-25T12:21:35.968-08:002013-01-25T12:21:35.968-08:00Nope, unless... beliefs can only generate one poss...Nope, unless... beliefs can only generate one possible action and that true beliefs are the ones that will save you from dying in this univocal relation. If there is at least two beliefs that generate the same response, i can defineately say that cosmo visions within the premises of the argument are not warranted.<br /><br />Putting simple, if there are no falsities in the world I absolutely agree wtih youEduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16571367988724605042013-01-25T12:13:26.290-08:002013-01-25T12:13:26.290-08:00> An antelope that believes the lion is in back...> An antelope that believes the lion is in back of him when it is actually in front won’t live long enough to reproduce, an antelope with a more accurate belief has a better chance.<br /><br />What if the antelope with the above beliefs also believes the best way to avoid the lion is too "run toward it"?<br /><br />Problem solved.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35509758643364809642013-01-25T11:53:44.840-08:002013-01-25T11:53:44.840-08:00the question is if evolution within naturalism can...<i>the question is if evolution within naturalism can lean towards true beliefs ....</i><br /><br />Presumably it is not so hard to accept that mundane true beliefs can be good for survival. An antelope that believes the lion is in back of him when it is actually in front won’t live long enough to reproduce, an antelope with a more accurate belief has a better chance.<br /><br />How true belief of that sort can lead to more abstract true beliefs, about the laws of motion or the Pythagorean theorem or the existence or nonexistence of God is an interesting and not really solved question. But cognition has to start somewhere, and we have pretty good ideas about how and where it starts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71440028958736487762013-01-25T10:54:00.481-08:002013-01-25T10:54:00.481-08:00Chris
Look for #1 on comments 1 to 200, i wrote p...Chris<br /><br />Look for #1 on comments 1 to 200, i wrote plantinga's argument there so you will get more or less what he thinks.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51892668398065229022013-01-25T10:50:02.730-08:002013-01-25T10:50:02.730-08:00Anon
Yeah we know, the question is if evolution w...Anon<br /><br />Yeah we know, the question is if evolution within naturalism can lean towards true beliefs ....Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-483330058388404152013-01-25T10:48:03.380-08:002013-01-25T10:48:03.380-08:00Chris
Sorry hahahaha, I was replying to you but i...Chris<br /><br />Sorry hahahaha, I was replying to you but it tooo so long people replied to you before. But that is plantinga's words, not really my view XD<br /><br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-499234587826887842013-01-25T10:46:22.212-08:002013-01-25T10:46:22.212-08:00@Yair
Some more mistakes.
>Whether God create...@Yair<br /><br />Some more mistakes.<br /><br />>Whether God creates creatures magically by saying magic words and waving a wand, or whether he does so by arranging a predetermined harmony - these are all forms of creationism, <br /><br />Loosely all forms of Theism that postulate a creator God are "creationist" but this is a trivial use of the term "creationist".<br /><br />Just as a loose definition of religion as "belief in Man's ultimate concern" would make all forms of Positive Atheism & or any philosophical views a "religion".<br /><br />Again trivial. <br /><br />>The only form of theism that isn't creationist is a deist god that set up laws of nature that naturally lead to the creation of life, without him needing to meddle whether directly or indirectly.<br /><br />You have a clearly Humean and Theistic Personalist view of Divine Interventionism. <br /><br />I see no difference between what you have described above pertaining to a Classic view of God in conjunction with the doctrine of Divine Providence. <br /><br />Even a Paley/Humean type interventionist Deity as you describe above could have used evolution in the above way to create life(and of course save his "interventions" for parting the Red Sea and or making the Sun dance at Fatima etc).<br /><br />So even a foul Theistic Personalist deity of whose existence I am a strong Atheist toward wouldn't be "Creationist".<br /><br />>Such a deity still has something to do with evolution, but that something does not include distorting it.<br /><br />Rather you are equivocating on your "god" concepts and you are no better then those in the Theistic camp that call Atheism a religion.<br /><br />Those are lovely "talking points" and a way to ad hominid your opponent but in the end it does not lead to any substantive critique of EAAN.<br /> <br />The Churchland stuff brought up by RS is way more substantial not that I at this time endorse it or not. BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.com