tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1479983287592247332..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Guest Post by Dr. Douglas Groothuis: "The Straw God: Understanding the New Atheism"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76319260778617345822009-04-09T07:51:00.000-04:002009-04-09T07:51:00.000-04:00"it is their content that Plantinga is most concer..."it is their content that Plantinga is most concerned about."<BR/><BR/>Yes I understand. So how do you and Plantinga propose that a person could acquire the "content" that the best way to get eaten by a tiger is to run away from it? Or worse, how would a person acquire the belief that he wants to get eaten by a tiger?<BR/><BR/>Certainly, human beings acquire all sorts of strange beliefs. But the vast majority of our mundane day to day beliefs are accurate. <BR/><BR/>I don't feel compelled to defend epiphenomenalism any more than I will defend the view that piston gremlins live in my car's engine.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24279215754869249132009-04-09T01:42:00.000-04:002009-04-09T01:42:00.000-04:00"What are you talking about? That makes no sense."..."What are you talking about? That makes no sense."<BR/><BR/>I'm talking about the fact that traditionally, strict evolutionists like T.H. Huxley have called beliefs epiphenomenal because they don't enter the causal chain leading to behavior. But even if they do enter the causal chain, it is their content that Plantinga is most concerned about.<BR/><BR/>"Natural selection does not select for "beliefs". This is where Plantinga shows his ass. NS selects for traits. A trait that accurately models the world will be adaptive, while a trait that inaccurately models the world will likely be maladaptive."<BR/><BR/>You're absolutely right! This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Natural Selection does not select for beliefs, it selects for traits, namely behavioral traits. So as long as our body parts end up in the right place for survival then the beliefs are both causally efficacious and adaptive, but you still haven't addressed the counterfactual of the plethora of potentially causally efficacious, adaptive, but false beliefs.<BR/><BR/>"Rather than lame arguments, if you don't like evolution, become a scientist and try to disprove it. If you don't like naturalism, demonstrate something supernatural."<BR/><BR/>I like evolution fine, as far as it goes. It's true, I don't particularly like naturalism, though I understand its appeal (I was a naturalist for a long while) but I think this argument does a good job of showing why evolution and naturalism are incompatible.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52256751636151250952009-04-09T01:37:00.000-04:002009-04-09T01:37:00.000-04:00It denies that it is probable that the TRUTH CONTE...<B>It denies that it is probable that the TRUTH CONTENT of our beliefs is at all interested in our behavior. That is the point of his counterfactual, to show that a belief could be causally efficacious and even adaptive (which is all evolution is interested in) and still be false.</B><BR/><BR/>This appears to be another case of theism inventing a problem, then throwing up it's hands and claiming "God must have done it", despite the obvious solution: the development of a truth deducing mechanism as a side-effect of one or more adaptive features which were selected by evolution. <BR/><BR/>For example, unlike some insects that benefit from have a particular color as a means of camouflage, having green leaves isn't necessarily beneficial for plants. However, Chlorophyll is green and it is beneficial because allows the conversion of light into energy via photosynthesis. Here the color green is a side effect that has no direct advantage in evolutionary fitness. <BR/><BR/>We could also create an analogy using various home construction techniques in regions with adverse weather, such as hurricanes and tornadoes. <BR/><BR/>When compared to those make of brick or concrete, wood framed homes are less likely to survive adverse weather. However, brick homes also have other advantages that are not directly related to it's ability to withstand storms. For example, brick homes require less maintenance, are less susceptible to insects and are better insulated regarding heat and sound. <BR/><BR/>These properties have little to no advantage regarding a buildings survival, yet they are still clearly beneficial.<BR/><BR/>Should it have been the case that a wood framed building were more resilient to adverse weather, such indirect properties would not have been "selected." <BR/><BR/>Once such a truth detecting system developed, it would provide a wide range of advantages which were not merely limited to survival. You could think of evolution as the first stage that boosts us into consciousness. From there, the game changes significantly as we discover the wiring behind the board. <BR/><BR/>While Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi addresses this subject in detail in his book "The Evolving Self", here's a link to an interview which provides a high level overview. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j21/csiksz.asp?page=2" REL="nofollow">Directing evolution through consciousness</A>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33496850128140032782009-04-08T21:06:00.000-04:002009-04-08T21:06:00.000-04:00"Well that's just it! Evolution is traditionally c..."Well that's just it! Evolution is traditionally committed to just that - that our beliefs are not causally efficacious on our behavior."<BR/><BR/>What are you talking about? That makes no sense. <BR/><BR/>"And given the plethora of adaptive-but-false beliefs that evolution could yield, he finds the probability unlikely"<BR/><BR/>Natural selection does not select for "beliefs". This is where Plantinga shows his ass. NS selects for traits. A trait that accurately models the world will be adaptive, while a trait that inaccurately models the world will likely be maladaptive.<BR/><BR/>Rather than lame arguments, if you don't like evolution, become a scientist and try to disprove it. If you don't like naturalism, demonstrate something supernatural.<BR/><BR/>These apologetic arguments are just sophistry.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74053576919219963542009-04-08T20:53:00.000-04:002009-04-08T20:53:00.000-04:00"Only if you think the content of the mind is gene..."Only if you think the content of the mind is generated in a contra-causal fashion."<BR/><BR/>Well that's just it! Evolution is traditionally committed to just that - that our beliefs are not causally efficacious on our behavior. That's epiphenomenalism. That's the view that T.H. Huxley took. And of course the quote from Patricia Churchland that's been getting some significant play: "a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four f's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive...Improvements in sensorimotor control confer and evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."<BR/><BR/>However, the argument doesn't even necessarily deny that the content of our mind is generated causally, that is in the purely materialistic sense of our mind (brain states, etc...) It doesn't even deny that our beliefs (whatever they may be on the materialistic/naturalistic account) are causally efficacious on our behavior. It denies that it is probable that the TRUTH CONTENT of our beliefs is at all interested in our behavior. That is the point of his counterfactual, to show that a belief could be causally efficacious and even adaptive (which is all evolution is interested in) and still be false. And given the plethora of adaptive-but-false beliefs that evolution could yield, he finds the probability unlikely, or at least inscrutable, that it has produced in us mostly true beliefs, obligating us to withhold that belief.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, I just want to add that I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion :)C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48330215233436104102009-04-08T18:08:00.000-04:002009-04-08T18:08:00.000-04:00"one of the properly basic beliefs in the foundati..."one of the properly basic beliefs in the foundation is belief in reliable cognitive faculties."<BR/><BR/>Right. I understand the EAAN. I also understand evolution.<BR/><BR/>Evolution provides us reliable cognitive faculties. My reliable cognitive faculties, extended by the inter-subjective reliable methods of science lead me to naturalism.<BR/><BR/>The EAAN fails because the premise that natural selection would be unlikely to lead to reliable cognitive faculties is false. It seems to me the people that argue for the EAAN don't have a clue about how natural selection works, and a big part of the cluelessness is that they have a contra-causal dualistic view of the mind.<BR/><BR/>More here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/wesley_robbins/contraplantinga.html<BR/><BR/>Our beliefs, for the most part, reflect reality. Only a dualist like Plantinga could come up with his strange examples like running from a tiger in an attempt to get eaten.<BR/><BR/>How could that belief come about?<BR/><BR/>Only if you think the content of the mind is generated in a contra-causal fashion.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21491247826735745472009-04-08T17:21:00.000-04:002009-04-08T17:21:00.000-04:00Unbeguiled and Crom:Sorry for the delayed response...Unbeguiled and Crom:<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the delayed response, George Berkeley stole my priorities.<BR/><BR/>The best way to look at the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is epistemologically. In the structure of beliefs that one holds, one of the properly basic beliefs in the foundation is belief in reliable cognitive faculties. The evolutionary naturalist cannot rationally maintain belief in both evolution and naturalism – maybe one or the other, but not both simultaneously. The theist’s belief in God does not contradict her belief in reliable cognitive faculties and so she can go on rationally maintaining both beliefs. <BR/><BR/>If any subsequent objection involves a lack of evidence for God, then we’ve talked past each other. This argument doesn’t depend on evidence for God because it is not a proof for God. It is a proof for the irrationality of the combination of evolution and naturalism in our noetic structure. This is an epistemological argument not metaphysical.<BR/><BR/>“Good thing too, since those are all steaming piles of crap.”<BR/><BR/>Perhaps so, to the question-begging methodological naturalist, but I must confess, I can no longer reason with the methodological naturalist ;)<BR/><BR/>Tim:<BR/><BR/>“You can't out-argue science, why try?”<BR/><BR/>No one’s trying to out-argue science. I am trying to show that science cannot justify itself. This isn’t a scientific question, but a philosophical one.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32888921688499335402009-04-08T06:03:00.000-04:002009-04-08T06:03:00.000-04:00There is no God, and I hate him!” This seems to be...<I>There is no God, and I hate him!” This seems to be the subtext for much of the “new atheism ...</I><BR/><BR><BR/>I can't be bothered to read beyond that point. The author must be stupid, dishonest, or both.Alejandro Izaguirre Martínhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09683918763872087975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47686422006754787972009-04-06T16:14:00.000-04:002009-04-06T16:14:00.000-04:00This is so childish. Are there no grown-ups who sp...This is so childish. Are there no grown-ups who speak for religion? You can't out-argue science, why try? Just say, "I believe because it makes me feel happier and I promise I won't kill or hate those who don't", and we can all sleep easier at night and you can all believe in Leprechauns and Fairies to your heart's content.Tim Bentinckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14895293930039102316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64939139204109402662009-04-04T14:45:00.000-04:002009-04-04T14:45:00.000-04:00Lord Thorkington"I don't think any historical conc...Lord Thorkington<BR/><BR/>"I don't think any historical conclusions "necessarily" follow from the evidence in a philosophical sense, ancient or modern."<BR/><BR/>Mmmmk, my bad, I kinda suspected that word might cause a misunderstanding. I don't mean it in a philosophical sense; all I'm trying to say is that believing that Jesus performed miracles on the say-so of biblical authors is not warranted...simply because they say so. Or so it seems to me. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement here. If you don't want to be skeptical on this point, then don't be.<BR/><BR/>As for your bit about Holocaust survivors having an "agenda". This line of argument is descending into false equivocation. No one is claiming we should accept the historical reality of the Holocaust purely on the basis of the testimony of those directly involved, as I've already blathered about at length.<BR/><BR/>With respect to how the bible was written; I'm just not qualified to talk about it. I have not studied it in any real depth. The best I can say for now is that, as far I'm aware, the historicity of the bible is considered up for debate by specialized scholars. Not the most satisfying rejoinder for you, perhaps, but it'll have to do for now.<BR/><BR/>"But I don’t see how an atheist could accept anything supernatural."<BR/><BR/>At this time, I don't see why anyone would. Supernatural events are unevidenced to any reasonable standard, unnecessary as explanations and possibly incoherent conceptually. That said, the only things atheists don't accept, by definition, are deities. An atheist could still believe in magic if they were a bit dim.<BR/><BR/>"I meant to say, the evolutionary naturalist assumes our cognitive faculties are reliable a priori, but the evolutionary supernaturalist doesn't, and thus the evolutionary naturalist begs the question where as the evolutionary supernaturalist does not, because for them there is a cause ensuring their cognitive faculties are reliable."<BR/><BR/>As has been pointed out above, everyone begs the question. There seems little choice other than to do so. The difference is, supernaturalists are introducing an additional, unevidenced variable into the equation in an attempt to make the problem go away, thus simultaneously pulling a "solution" from betwixt their nether regions (as far as anyone can tell) while begging the question <I>about the solution itself</I>. <BR/><BR/>The best anyone can do about this is acknowledge that they could be mistaken, about anything, while not sprinkling unneeded fairy dust on the problem.<BR/><BR/>"Defeater is something that prevents you from being justified (or warranted) in your belief. Rendering something “logically invalid” is not the project. The project is to show that one is intellectually obligated to withhold belief in naturalism. Being intellectually obligated to withhold a belief is stronger than having a reason to doubt, or to tentatively hold a belief."<BR/><BR/>Mmmk, fair enough. The issue for me is, I simply don't agree that the philosophical problems with justifying belief prevent one from holding naturalism as a tentative belief. The "tentative" part is all I see any need for when answering the question of how one could accept naturalism in the face of epistemological difficulty. In fact, I honestly don't see how one could view naturalism as anything other than the null hypothesis at this point in time; natural explanations abound, in stark, polar contrast to supernatural ones, which are nowhere to be found. To withhold a tentative belief in naturalism would be to tacitly accept supernaturalism, but that is the belief in need of evidence. For that matter, that is the belief in need of definition; I'm not convinced that supernaturalism is even conceptually coherent. What does it mean to say that something does not occur by (explainable) cause, or that it exists outside nature? It amounts to an attempt to put something (usually God) in a conceptual box, safe from the prying fingers of rational consideration, as far as I can tell.<BR/><BR/>"The theistic arguments (cosmological, teleological, moral, ontological) give some evidence for the existence of God and the kind of God that he is, although I’m not going to say they intellectually obligate anyone to believe in God on their own."<BR/><BR/>Good thing too, since those are all steaming piles of crap.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404448630593670371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12414792223557046502009-04-04T14:25:00.000-04:002009-04-04T14:25:00.000-04:00No problem Lord Thorkington.We are all forced by c...No problem Lord Thorkington.<BR/><BR/>We are all forced by circumstance to rely on our sense organs and brains. Any attempt to "ground" that assumption in reference to something else will beg the question.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes an atheist will attempt justify her use of empiricism by appealing to the fruits of science. But that's just silly. She can't justify her use of her sense organs by appealing to what her sense organs tell her. She's then assuming up front what she's trying to justify.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, presuppers will claim they are justified in using their sense organs because the Bible tells them that God maintains the uniformity of nature. But did they read that in the Bible without using their eyes? Again, assuming up front what they are trying to justify.<BR/><BR/>Also, I have had theists label my unjustified reliance on my sense organs as 'faith'. But that's just silly. I rely on my sense organs because of the impossibility of the contrary, and so do they. That's not faith, it's instinct.<BR/><BR/>So, since you and me agree that we both assume the basic reliability of our cognitive faculties, we have a common ground from which to have a conversation.<BR/><BR/>Based on your experience, what methods have you found that reliably extend your cognitive functions? <BR/><BR/>For example two metal balls appear roughly the same size and weight, but you want to determine which is heavier.<BR/><BR/>How do you find out? Do you pray? Do you consult the entrails of a goat? Do you consult experts on metallurgy? Do you consult professional ball players? <BR/><BR/>Or do you use a scale?<BR/><BR/>I bet you will use a scale. That's science.<BR/><BR/>Using that method, we have yet to find any ghosts, elves, souls, gods, angels, or demons.<BR/><BR/>But it seems you have concluded that some things in the above list do in fact exist. <B>Based on our common ground assumption</B>, how did you get there? What was your reliable method?GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32132463874138761202009-04-04T13:49:00.000-04:002009-04-04T13:49:00.000-04:00Unbeguiled:Thanks for catching me on that. You're...Unbeguiled:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for catching me on that. You're right, I should have just left it at: We DO both assume the reliability of our cognitive faculties, but the difference is that the evolutionary naturalist ends up defeating his own assumption whereas the someone like me will infer God as the best explanation.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23002391842214068132009-04-04T06:11:00.000-04:002009-04-04T06:11:00.000-04:00Lord Thorkington said:because for them there is a ...Lord Thorkington said:<BR/><BR/><B>because for them there is a cause ensuring their cognitive faculties are reliable.</B><BR/><BR/>So you can be sure your cognitive faculties are reliable because your cognitive faculties inform you that God ensures they are reliable?<BR/><BR/>If that is not question begging, then there is no such thing as question begging.<BR/><BR/>We all rely on our senses and brains by instinct. Could we do otherwise?<BR/><BR/>We cannot digest food without using our gut. Could we do otherwise? Do I need to provide proper justification for using my gut?GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36041781854106756682009-04-04T04:31:00.000-04:002009-04-04T04:31:00.000-04:00I made a mistake. I said, "Because we both assume...I made a mistake. I said, "Because we both assume we have reliable cognitive faculties a priori, but the end result for the evolutionary naturalist is begging the question."<BR/><BR/>I meant to say, the evolutionary naturalist assumes our cognitive faculties are reliable a priori, but the evolutionary supernaturalist doesn't, and thus the evolutionary naturalist begs the question where as the evolutionary supernaturalist does not, because for them there is a cause ensuring their cognitive faculties are reliable.<BR/><BR/>This is supported by the last paragraph in my previous post.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66250545866915877822009-04-03T20:51:00.000-04:002009-04-03T20:51:00.000-04:00Crom:"the difference is you're smuggling in fancif...Crom:<BR/><BR/>"the difference is you're smuggling in fanciful claims upthread that don't necessarily follow from the evidence available to us." <BR/><BR/>I don't think any historical conclusions "necessarily" follow from the evidence in a philosophical sense, ancient or modern. Besides, I don't see what's so fanciful about them unless you dismiss them a priori, and what sets these claims apart are that the authors are trying to record history (they tell us as much), whereas Homer never claimed his Greek mythology was historical, for example.<BR/><BR/>And the "well they had an agenda" argument doesn't work. If it did we would have to toss out the holocaust survivor's testimony, because they have one of the strongest agendas in modern experience. I don't think either of us is willing to toss that out.<BR/>Try to think of the Bible like this: When the early councils were forming the canon they considered the relevant texts about the life of Jesus. They chose the books that were the most reliable based on how close the author was to the event. Books that didn't agree with the main body of historical claims and oral traditions from eyewitnesses, like the gnostic books that came much later, weren't included. Two points on this: The Jewish oral tradition was considered to be very reliable, in fact many people considered writing less reliable because nobody would have to remember what actually happened - and the Jews were very good at remembering, some of the best in fact. Second, is it at all surprising that the accounts that disagreed with the main body of textual evidence and tradition weren't included? Certainly not, would you include a neo-nazi's testimony in your history book about the holocaust? I should hope not, and for the same reasons too.<BR/><BR/>Also, if the early church historians considered an exhaustive amount of evidence about the life of Jesus, then it follows that there isn't going to be a whole lot of other evidence out there that wasn't either included in the canon, or considered and dismissed for various reasons. I've talked about some of that evidence earlier. But you're looking for some overwhelming body of evidence that has never touched anything Christian, which is not there for a few reasons: 1. Latin and Greek culture weren't particularly interested in Jewish culture. 2. Jewish culture was, like I said, very oral. 3. The overwhelming body of textual evidence was already considered by the early church historians.<BR/><BR/>So you see, the historical method has already been applied, and the canon we have is exactly the kind of thing history is supposed to produce. You collect the best evidence and codify it through doctrinal statements.<BR/><BR/>“I suspect that you may be trotting out canned apologetics”<BR/><BR/>Not the case.<BR/><BR/>“Hold on now, you're getting ahead of yourself.”<BR/><BR/>You may be right, I did assume you were a naturalist because most atheists are. But I don’t see how an atheist could accept anything supernatural.<BR/><BR/>“Any attempt to evaluate how probable it is that our cognitive faculties are reliable necessarily involves relying on our cognitive faculties, and thus assumes what was to be proven.”<BR/><BR/>Yes, it’s circular for the evolutionary naturalist, but not for the evolutionary supernaturalist, and that’s just the point. Because we both assume we have reliable cognitive faculties a priori, but the end result for the evolutionary naturalist is begging the question.<BR/><BR/>“Casting doubt is not the equivalent of "defeating" a belief”<BR/><BR/>First, I wasn’t giving a defeater for belief in reliable cognitive faculties, I was giving a defeater for naturalism, which most atheists hold. Again, I don’t see how they wouldn’t. Defeater is something that prevents you from being justified (or warranted) in your belief. Rendering something “logically invalid” is not the project. The project is to show that one is intellectually obligated to withhold belief in naturalism. Being intellectually obligated to withhold a belief is stronger than having a reason to doubt, or to tentatively hold a belief.<BR/><BR/>“because it's not bloody well distinguishable from something you made up on the spot.”<BR/><BR/>It certainly is. The theistic arguments (cosmological, teleological, moral, ontological) give some evidence for the existence of God and the kind of God that he is, although I’m not going to say they intellectually obligate anyone to believe in God on their own. But I’m also not creating anything to satisfy the conditions I can’t otherwise explain, this evidence is established independently.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18389353869035120262009-04-03T16:38:00.000-04:002009-04-03T16:38:00.000-04:00@The Jesting Fool said... "the leap of faith is no...@The Jesting Fool said... <BR/>"the leap of faith is not intellectual suicide". <BR/>I completely agree. "I think therefore I am" is the only truth we KNOW FOR SURE. The rest of the truths we "know" because we take A leap of faith. Unlike scientific knowledge that is based on ONE leap of faith, the naturalistic assumption/faith, the religious knowledge requires hopping around like a mad kangaroo. First you have to jump to the existence something outside nature. Than you have to jump to the ideea that what is outside nature controls nature. Than you have to jump to the ideea that what controls the nature is personal. Than you have to jump to the ideea that that person has a plan with us. Than you have to jump to the ideea that the plan was dictated to some people. Than you have to jump to the ideea that those people wrote it in a book. Than you have to jump to the ideea that it is the book you have in your hand. Than you have to jump to the ideea that Satan didn't mess with the book. And in the end you have to jump to the ideea that is OK to make these jumps. And than you have to refuse other to make the exact same number of jumps as you made to reach a different conclusion.<BR/>As I said, I agree ONE leap of faith is not intellectual suicide. But how many leaps of faith does it take to declare the brain-death?Logosferahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18231542536398128476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40224859886741706132009-04-03T13:57:00.000-04:002009-04-03T13:57:00.000-04:00"I will take the insulting and belittling remarks ..."I will take the insulting and belittling remarks on the chin if you insist."<BR/><BR/>The portion of the internets I usually frequent, making fun of a person's argument is not equated with insulting them personally. But whatever, I don't want to waste any further time on this, and I won't do it if it really chaps your britches.<BR/><BR/>"I am personally satisfied that the evidence for Jesus' life is sufficient for us to draw conclusions, however "provisional they may fundamentally be."<BR/><BR/>So am I, the difference is that you were smuggling in fanciful claims upthread that don't necessarily follow from the evidence available to us.<BR/><BR/>"It actually doesn't matter if you are unwilling to admit that the probability of reliable cognitive faculties given naturalism and evolution is low."<BR/><BR/>Hold on now, you're getting ahead of yourself. Please take care to read what I personally have said when responding to my remarks...I suspect that you may be trotting out canned apologetics, and they aren't necessarily relevant to our conversation. I've granted you nothing as yet <B>with respect to naturalism</B>. All I've granted you so far is that evolution doesn't <B>have</B> to produce reliable cognitive faculties in order to <B>work</B>. That is to say, inaccurate faculties could still be adaptive. <B>That's all</B>. At no point so far have I indicated that I take naturalism as an axiomatic presupposition. One doesn't strictly need it in order to discuss how evolution may or may not work.<BR/><BR/>"Even if the probability of reliable cognitive faculties is inscrutable to you, that is to say you have no definite idea of the probability either way..."<BR/><BR/>I don't. Neither do you. No one does. Any attempt to evaluate how probable it is that our cognitive faculties are reliable necessarily involves relying on our cognitive faculties, and thus assumes what was to be proven.<BR/>Which is precisely why it's a big, reeking unjustified assumption on your part to declare that it's "unlikely".<BR/><BR/>"...it is still enough to give a defeater for your belief in naturalism."<BR/><BR/>No it wouldn't be, even assuming that that's a belief I hold. Casting doubt is not the equivalent of "defeating" a belief, which I take it in this context means rendering it logically invalid. The most you could say to a naturalist is to prepare for the possibility that they could be wrong, which any intellectually honest person ought to do anyway.<BR/><BR/>"This is because even if the probability is inscrutable to you, the mere incapability of assigning a probability either way is enough to cast doubt on your belief in the reliability of your cognitive faculties. "<BR/><BR/>Way ahead of you in the doubt department, my friend. <BR/><BR/>"And thus you have a reason for withholding your belief in your reliable cognitive faculties.."<BR/><BR/>Again, already there.<BR/><BR/>"...and thus you have a defeater for your belief in naturalism."<BR/><BR/>No you don't. You have a reason to doubt that, or any other belief, at the most. Which I'm already prepared to do. You've quoted me using the word "provisional", so I would hope by this point it's starting to sink in.<BR/><BR/>In the interest of discussion, I should probably point out that I consider methodological naturalism as a kind of working theory. You're not going to catch me ruling things out <I>a priori</I> because they contradict naturalism, so just...please don't try. It's tiresome. The most you're going to get from me is skepticism of supernatural events, but I think we both agree that's appropriate.<BR/><BR/>"To complain that the best explanation is "untestable" is circular reasoning because it requires you to presuppose that the only valid "solutions" will be testable before you ever begin."<BR/><BR/>I threw in "untestable" to illustrate that it's uninformative, not that it's invalid. You could be cheerfully making things up with respect to God and our faculties and still be right quite by accident, and thus have proposed a valid solution, but no one would ever know <B>because it's not bloody well distinguishable from something you made up on the spot</B>. Hence the bits about "magic" and "handwaving", which were really the more important.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404448630593670371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52625203909187322722009-04-03T02:38:00.000-04:002009-04-03T02:38:00.000-04:00Lord TYou know what? You are right. Guys, I'm sorr...Lord T<BR/><BR/>You know what? You are right. <BR/><BR/>Guys, I'm sorry to say but Lord T is correct in something he says. <BR/><BR/>It IS very unlikely that evolution would give us the ability to accurately discern true beliefs from false ones. And guess what, it has not. If it had then surely we would all believe the same thing - the truth.<BR/><BR/>We have evolved as pattern seeking,tool making apes and using these abilities, we've managed to hit on the one thing that seems to actually work. Science, logic and reason.<BR/><BR/>Faith was a good enough way of claiming truth for most of our history as long as everyone accepted whatever the prevailing faith was. If you did not then because your claim was as good as the next man's the only way to prove it was "My god's bigger than your god" and have a fight over it. Then along came scientists who rejected the faith claims and decided to use this better tool. <BR/><BR/>50 people each has faith in their plant cure for a headache and to an extent (some work,one best of all) it is right, along comes the scientist and uses this new tool, discerns which actually works best and 49 faiths should now be abandoned. but human nature being what it is? Yeh right. <BR/><BR/>Now, we still might be deluding ourselves and science might well lead to false claims but until something else comes along, we have no way of knowing, so we may as well accept it or pack up and go home.<BR/><BR/>If you are prepared to abandon evidence,reason and logic in your attempts to argue your case, then you have already lost the argument. It is the only game in town that works, time after time after time.sean slaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01768973037531247199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65641505552432140252009-04-03T02:35:00.000-04:002009-04-03T02:35:00.000-04:00"given our sense of cause and effect"Cause and eff..."given our sense of cause and effect"<BR/><BR/>Cause and effect are not defined in the sense of one appearing before the other in time. The direction of causality is a debatted thing in philosophy and it very well might be that the effect might appear before the cause. (e.g. Jonathan Bennett, David Hugh Mellor)Mats Volberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10629977827114919446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45930452539667285672009-04-03T00:27:00.000-04:002009-04-03T00:27:00.000-04:00Lord Thork:from http://www.blogger.com/home click ...Lord Thork:<BR/><BR/>from http://www.blogger.com/home click edit profile and change your display name to whatever you want.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64961682678929536462009-04-03T00:02:00.000-04:002009-04-03T00:02:00.000-04:00on a side note:does anyone know how to make it so ...on a side note:<BR/><BR/>does anyone know how to make it so that my actual name appears instead of my screen name? <BR/><BR/>when I send emails from my gmail account my name shows up, I don't know why it doesn't on here.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63880610102602834302009-04-02T23:59:00.000-04:002009-04-02T23:59:00.000-04:00Crom:I will take the insulting and belittling rema...Crom:<BR/><BR/>I will take the insulting and belittling remarks on the chin if you insist.<BR/><BR/>"I personally am satisfied that the evidence for the holocaust, and any number of other historical events, is sufficient for us to draw conclusions, however provisional they may fundamentally be."<BR/><BR/>I am personally satisfied that the evidence for Jesus' life is sufficient for us to draw conclusions, however "provisional they may fundamentally be."<BR/><BR/>"You keep saying this or that is likely or unlikely, but I can't detect what standard you're using to assign probabilities."<BR/><BR/>It actually doesn't matter if you are unwilling to admit that the probability of reliable cognitive faculties given naturalism and evolution is low. Even if the probability of reliable cognitive faculties is inscrutable to you, that is to say you have no definite idea of the probability either way, it is still enough to give a defeater for your belief in naturalism. This is because even if the probability is inscrutable to you, the mere incapability of assigning a probability either way is enough to cast doubt on your belief in the reliability of your cognitive faculties. And thus you have a reason for withholding your belief in your reliable cognitive faculties, and thus you have a defeater for your belief in naturalism.<BR/><BR/>"that's positing a magical, untestable 'solution' that conveniently handwaves the problems away."<BR/><BR/>To complain that the best explanation is "untestable" is circular reasoning because it requires you to presuppose that the only valid "solutions" will be testable before you ever begin.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77027081230020410972009-04-02T22:02:00.000-04:002009-04-02T22:02:00.000-04:00"Name-calling is implicitly, if not explicitly, ad..."Name-calling is implicitly, if not explicitly, ad hominem because the intent is to make disparaging remarks about someone with the purpose of discrediting anything they say or anything people associated with them say, and you're right - it is a fallacy."<BR/><BR/>I simply have not deployed an ad hominem; at no point in this discussion have I attacked anyone's personal merits as a reason to disbelieve their arguments. If you can't deal with a sarcastic tone, or pejorative language applied to your favourite imaginary friend, then...I dunno. Find the strength within, I guess.<BR/><BR/>As to the bulk of your post in which you discuss how we know what we claim to know about history. Look, I'm already familiar with the epistemological issues surrounding the discipline of history. With that in mind, I personally am satisfied that the evidence for the holocaust, and any number of other historical events, is sufficient for us to draw conclusions, however provisional they may fundamentally be.<BR/><BR/>"True, but it [naturalism] is very likely that it is one of them. Likely enough by any standard of warrant to give us a defeater for it."<BR/><BR/>You keep saying this or that is likely or unlikely, but I can't detect what standard you're using to assign probabilities. Even though I grant you that evolution doesn't have to equip one with true beliefs in order to work, I have no idea how you're able to deduce that naturalism would be likely to be a belief that "evolution gets wrong". You seem to be declaring it by fiat.<BR/><BR/>"I never said this [a personal God] was a necessary conclusion, it is an inference to the best explanation."<BR/><BR/>I disagree. A quote if I may;<BR/><BR/>"The Christian doesn't encounter this problem [producing true beliefs] because the Christian believes that God created her with properly functioning cognitive faculties that produce in her mostly true beliefs."<BR/><BR/>You (Christians) needed a way to short-circuit the philosophical problems with beliefs, so you declare your God resolves them for you. That's not an inference to the best explanation, that's positing a magical, untestable 'solution' that conveniently handwaves the problems away.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12404448630593670371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84786729481762631632009-04-02T20:06:00.000-04:002009-04-02T20:06:00.000-04:00Cromm:Name-calling is implicitly, if not explicitl...Cromm:<BR/><BR/>Name-calling is implicitly, if not explicitly, ad hominem because the intent is to make disparaging remarks about someone with the purpose of discrediting anything they say or anything people associated with them say, and you're right - it is a fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Are we allowed to dismiss historical accounts because the people writing them have an agenda? You mentioned the survivors of the holocaust - talk about a group of people with an agenda. That is not a fair criteria, so we are obligated to remove it from our system.<BR/><BR/>and the meticulous records the Nazis themselves kept. There are films taken before and after the camps were liberated, and a metric ton of other lines of evidence."<BR/><BR/>Even meticulous records are eyewitness accounts. Try to treat it objectively as you want, but at the bottom of it all, there is a person behind the document with an agenda. The German soldier recording how many Jews they put to death is giving you his account of what he saw. Maybe he miscounted, maybe he exaggerated the numbers to please Hitler. <BR/><BR/>As to the films you've seen about it. You weren't there for the filming, you don't know that the cinematographer didn't coach the people in the film or the whole film was staged. All you know is a story of context attached to whatever film you perceive with your eyes.<BR/><BR/>And the plethora of evidence doesn't tell us anything except there is a lot of potentially tainted data, that we can prove neither true nor false.<BR/><BR/>My point in all this isn't to say that we can't know anything, but to say that what we think we can know so objectively isn't nearly as sure as we would like to think, but it also places everything on a much more even playing field. I realize this blurs the line somewhat between myth and history and that's ok, because we could learn something very false based on several bad accounts of history, whereas we could learn something very true about human nature or love from a novel. This also allows us to evaluate history in a metanarrative sense.<BR/><BR/>"it wouldn't follow that naturalism would have to be one of them."<BR/><BR/>True, but it is very likely that it is one of them. Likely enough by any standard of warrant to give us a defeater for it.<BR/><BR/>"you are assuming your conclusion by declaring it "likely" that naturalism is false."<BR/><BR/>Not so. My argument, or rather Plantinga's, has to do with your beliefs. Naturalism may very well be true, but if evolution is also true then it is very unlikely that we would have come to the true belief in naturalism. It doesn't assume anything about naturalism itself, only that we have a defeater for our belief in it.<BR/><BR/>"That whole bit about a personal agent ensuring things for you is nothing more than a post hoc security blanket invented for the purpose of taking things for granted."<BR/><BR/>I never said this was a necessary conclusion, it is an inference to the best explanation.C.T. Gillilandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08935793297525355750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28633201700186325162009-04-02T19:02:00.000-04:002009-04-02T19:02:00.000-04:00Lordy Thorkington.A globerfunkle exists.Do you bel...Lordy Thorkington.<BR/><BR/>A globerfunkle exists.<BR/><BR/>Do you believe that? <BR/><BR/>What should the default position be? Is the onus on you to demonstrate ~"globerfunkle exists"?<BR/><BR/>Nature and nature's laws exist. You claim something else exists as well. The onus is on you, no matter how you wiggle and squirm.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.com