Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

[Hamilton Porter]

(1) Our cognitive faculties are reliable.

(2) No God exists and no forces exist outside our brains.

(3) Our brains evolved to help us survive, not to give us true beliefs.

(4) Therefore, our brains are not reliable for truth.

(5) Therefore, (4) and (1) contradict.

(6) Therefore, if evolution is true, atheism is false.

(7) Because evolution is true, atheism is false.

An illustration of (3):

You are a frog standing on a lily pad and a fly zips by.

(T) True belief: The fly is yummy. If I eat the fly it will strengthen and nourish my body.

(F) False belief: If I eat the fly, I will turn into a prince.

Natural selection will reinforce either belief.

-Alvin Plantinga

Edited March 13, 2013 by Hamilton Porter

[Alvino]

An explanation for the layman from the man himself would be helpful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

[mfbukowski]

I can't believe he did not define what a "true belief" is. That is the key.

"If you believe in evolution you can't think of your natural faculties giving you the truth of world"

True.

But you don't need to. Truth is what has evolved because it works. Truth is what is adaptive.

The bottom line is he is exactly right, but is on the wrong side of the split. The case IS that thought itself has evolved but it tells us nothing about a "reality" outside of our evolved perceptions.

This is indeed my argument against the correspondence theory of truth. There is no way to know if our beliefs "correspond" to a world independent of our perceptions, and indeed this IS the way naturalism sees the world.

The argument works perfectly, because the truth itself IS adaptive, and naturalism is false because it presumes a "reality" beyond our human perception

But I am gone from here for some period of time- who knows, perhaps forever. Carry on, my friends!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I completely disagree with Plantinga's arguments, especially if we're attempting to apply them to LDS beliefs.

It seems to me that Mormons are "Atheists" in terms of the disembodied First Cause God of most of traditional Christianity. We see that view of God as being evidence of the Apostasy. We have scripture that states flat out that even "spiritual" things are composed of matter. Very few traditional defenses that try to prove the necessity of a Ground Of All Being God are tenable. Plantinga's arguments -- like most of those descended from Neo-Platonism -- just don't work.

In the first place, for one thing, it's perfectly possible to believe in naturalistic deities. Just as we are Intelligences whose physical existence and thoughts are all "real" within the context of an all-encompassing Nature, so too are (or at least hypothetically can be) the Intelligences we name as Gods. Heck, I even wrote a big thread on that some time ago.

For another thing, it's also possible to believe in evolution, naturalism, and materialism without thinking that pure natural selection is a sufficient mechanism for all changes. I like many aspects of Panspermia in this respect, for instance.

Plantinga's arguments, especially about "beliefs", are confused -- due, I think, to a tendency towards conceptualizing even evolutionary systems within the structural framework and terms of religious Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy. That is, rather than "truth" being a linguistic formulation between speakers, he seems (at least from this video) to see it as a sort of free-floating ethereal Something which we are closer or farther to apprehending "correctly." The distinction he's trying to draw, then, between correct beliefs about "truth" and the physical mechanisms by which creatures perceive is rooted in his specific view of what God is. But why are our perceptions somehow "unreal"? They exist as a part of reality, they're adaptive in and of themselves. What does it mean for a frog to have a "false belief"? The hypothetical probabilistic argument is so divorced from what actually needs to be accounted for in the natural world that it loses any explanatory utility. We see through a glass darkly; I don't think that his assertions about what "we all" assume about the reliability of our perceptions holds.

[Alvino]

The bottom line is he is exactly right, but is on the wrong side of the split.

How can you say he is right when the idea of truth he uses is very different from pragmatic theories of truth? How is he right according to you when his argument is against the conjunction of evolution and naturalism undermine their own case, not that we in fact have no reason to think our cognitive abilities are reliable?

The case IS that thought itself has evolved but it tells us nothing about a "reality" outside of our evolved perceptions.

And that isn't what Plantinga discusses. He distinguishes between a behavior being useful to survival and an idea being useful to survival because it elicits behavior useful to survival. Not to mention the relation he assumes between these ideas and truths, which truth isn't pragmatic.

This is indeed my argument against the correspondence theory of truth. There is no way to know if our beliefs "correspond" to a world independent of our perceptions,

That is because you have a bias against perceptions themselves. No correspondence theorist believes the only way we can be justified in having correspondent knowledge is if we can confirm something independently of ours and all perceptions.

and indeed this IS the way naturalism sees the world.

You can very much be a pragmatist (or a non-correspondence theorist) and a naturalist, though.

The argument works perfectly, because the truth itself IS adaptive,

Which Plantinga denies. You can't just change the meaning of words used in an argument and say the argument is correct, brother.

[Alvino]

I completely disagree with Plantinga's arguments, especially if we're attempting to apply them to LDS beliefs.

It seems to me that Mormons are "Atheists" in terms of the disembodied First Cause God of most of traditional Christianity. We see that view of God as being evidence of the Apostasy. We have scripture that states flat out that even "spiritual" things are composed of matter. Very few traditional defenses that try to prove the necessity of a Ground Of All Being God are tenable. Plantinga's arguments -- like most of those descended from Neo-Platonism -- just don't work.

He isn't arguing for God there, Jeremy. He even starts with the assumption that such God, or something like God, doesn't exist to point out the tension between naturalism and evolution with the reliability of our minds.

In the first place, for one thing, it's perfectly possible to believe in naturalistic deities.

And Naturalism denies such entities; that is simply not what naturalism is. If you think they are compatible, well and good, but that isn't what Plantinga is attacking.

For another thing, it's also possible to believe in evolution, naturalism, and materialism without thinking that pure natural selection is a sufficient mechanism for all changes. I like many aspects of Panspermia in this respect, for instance.

Did you see the video, Jeremy? He starts presenting the argument by talking about beings outside our world. He says that if we have a believe X and a set of other beliefs 1 through n that depend on X being true for them to be true, then if X is probably false then we have reason to believe beliefs 1 through n are probably false as well. When one assumes Panspermia, if whoever created us is subject to natural selection and random mutation one also has reasons to say we should doubt the designer's designs as far as reliability in finding truth (i.e. us) is concerned.

Plantinga's arguments, especially about "beliefs", are confused -- due, I think, to a tendency towards conceptualizing even evolutionary systems within the structural framework and terms of religious Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy

I didn't see in what he was talking about evolution something that was different from how evolutionary systems are talked about in Biology. Can you please clarify what about his conception of evolution is tied down by a "religious Orthodoxy vs Orthopraxy" framework? If he doesn't differ from how scientists normally talk about evolution then you must think this problem is endemic within evolutionary theory.

That is, rather than "truth" being a linguistic formulation between speakers, he seems (at least from this video) to see it as a sort of free-floating ethereal Something which we are closer or farther to apprehending "correctly."

Truth is expressed through linguistic formulations but I think Plantinga wouldn't say this relationship between state of affairs and our linguistic formulas is more ethereal than determining whether eating soap cures migraines is an ethereal matter.

The distinction he's trying to draw, then, between correct beliefs about "truth"

He isn't talking about correct beliefs about truth, you are. He assumes a quite common conception of truth and argues that naturalism and evolution taken together undermine their own case. He is talking about correct beliefs about the world.

and the physical mechanisms by which creatures perceive is rooted in his specific view of what God is.

Jeremy, he explicitly states that naturalism denies the existence of God or of beings like God. A physical God bound by the same physical laws we are could be a part of the conjunction of beliefs "naturalism and evolution" depending on how it arose.

But why are our perceptions somehow "unreal"?

Perceptions aren't unreal. Propositions are false.

They exist as a part of reality, they're adaptive in and of themselves. What does it mean for a frog to have a "false belief"?

There is a basic distinction made in epistemology between propositional knowledge and other kinds of knowledge (for example, practical knowledge). Plantinga is only talking about propositional knowledge and beliefs, not other kinds.

The hypothetical probabilistic argument is so divorced from what actually needs to be accounted for in the natural world that it loses any explanatory utility. We see through a glass darkly; I don't think that his assertions about what "we all" assume about the reliability of our perceptions holds.

I have no idea what you mean by "what actually needs to be accounted for in the natural world."

Edited March 13, 2013 by Alvino

[Calm]

But I am gone from here for some period of time- who knows, perhaps forever. Carry on, my friends!

Surely not!

[Hamilton Porter]

What does it mean for a frog to have a "false belief"? The hypothetical probabilistic argument is so divorced from what actually needs to be accounted for in the natural world that it loses any explanatory utility. We see through a glass darkly; I don't think that his assertions about what "we all" assume about the reliability of our perceptions holds.

C'mon dude, the frog is not a post-modernist. If he believes he'll turn into a prince by eating the fly, that's a false belief.

[thesometimesaint]

If we are what we eat. Does that mean the frog is a fly?

[bcuzbcuz]

(1) Our cognitive faculties are reliable.

(2) No God exists and no forces exist outside our brains.

(3) Our brains evolved to help us survive, not to give us true beliefs.

(4) Therefore, our brains are not reliable for truth.

(5) Therefore, (4) and (1) contradict.

(6) Therefore, if evolution is true, atheism is false.

(7) Because evolution is true, atheism is false.

An illustration of (3):

You are a frog standing on a lily pad and a fly zips by.

(T) True belief: The fly is yummy. If I eat the fly it will strengthen and nourish my body.

(F) False belief: If I eat the fly, I will turn into a prince.

Natural selection will reinforce either belief.

-Alvin Plantinga

"Modus ponendo ponens" or in the case of your statement 6 and 7, denying the antecedent from a hypothetical syllogism. But you miss the mark.

In your illustration of point 3, you have given the frog anthropomorphic qualities that make your whole summation incorrect.

A frog sitting on a leaf does not think of the fly as "yummy". It has absolutely no ability to arrive at conclusions of nourishment. You can prove this in a lab. A frog will only try to zap small things. A dog dressed up as a fly garners no interest from the frog because the dog is too big. The movement of the object also factors in. A frog will not zap a cardboard box, but a cardboard box moved in fly-like patterns will get zapped. The frog does not need to think of nutrition, anymore than a man thinks of nourishment as he stuffs his face with chips while watching a football game. The process of stuffing the face, and even chewing, take up minimal amounts of brain activity.

The fly does not entertain any thoughts about eating a fly and turning into a prince any more than does the man stuffing his face envisions that his eating chips will turn him into a prince.

You adding "natural selection" and "true and false beliefs" to the equation is a totally false dichotomy.

[Hamilton Porter]

"Modus ponendo ponens" or in the case of your statement 6 and 7, denying the antecedent from a hypothetical syllogism.

No it's not. (6) is a conditional statement. Since we know evolution is true, that conditional statement is fulfilled.

But you miss the mark.

In your illustration of point 3, you have given the frog anthropomorphic qualities that make your whole summation incorrect.

A frog sitting on a leaf does not think of the fly as "yummy". It has absolutely no ability to arrive at conclusions of nourishment. You can prove this in a lab. A frog will only try to zap small things. A dog dressed up as a fly garners no interest from the frog because the dog is too big. The movement of the object also factors in. A frog will not zap a cardboard box, but a cardboard box moved in fly-like patterns will get zapped. The frog does not need to think of nutrition, anymore than a man thinks of nourishment as he stuffs his face with chips while watching a football game. The process of stuffing the face, and even chewing, take up minimal amounts of brain activity.

The fly does not entertain any thoughts about eating a fly and turning into a prince any more than does the man stuffing his face envisions that his eating chips will turn him into a prince.

I'm the one who misses the mark? Dude, the entire point of Plantinga's argument was the natural selection only cares about survival behaviors (which you beautifully illustrated) and not true beliefs. It's not about a frog's neurobiology. Natural selection will reinforce your behavior even if it is based on false beliefs. If you don't like the anthropomorphic frog, here is a hominid illustration:

You are a caveman who encounters a lion.

(T) True belief. You have to run away or the lion is going to eat me.

(F) False belief. You are about to run a marathon, and the lion means "Start."

(F) False belief. The lion is a sweet little kitten and you want to pet it. The best way to pet it is to run away (Another false belief).

You adding "natural selection"

You believe in Lamarckianism then? Come to think of it, Lamarckianism doesn't change the game either, as it is concerned with survival as well.

"true and false beliefs" to the equation is a totally false dichotomy.

This doesn't change the game either. Even if you posit a spectrum, natural selection (or whatever evolutionary mechanism you posit) reinforces beliefs that have low validity.

[Stone holm]

This is an example of why philosophic logic can take you down a black hole. While it is true that neurology may hardwire us to believe in something -- which I believe is probably what the Light of Christ is all about. But to take that further to say okay, because our senses are tend to fool us -- for example many people were at one time fooled into believing the Sun orbited the Earth then we must say fooled once means you are always fooled. No that is not correct thinking. Better is the argument that we see things "darkly as through a smoky glass", which is an accurate assessment of the senses. With regards to materialism, I don't know as I would agree that because we believe in a material God that we are atheists in terms of original cause. I think we simply don't answer original cause. Lots of Mormons would be shocked with that position because they still cling to some sense that God created everything -- of course that is not the case and we know that is not the case from explicit doctrine. Does that mean there never was some original cause that caused everything to come into being? That I believe is something we have absolutely no clue about, and if Eliza Snow is correct in her hymn Hie Onto Kolob, the answer is that we are never going to know -- ever period. What exactly that signifies, I am not sure. But it is a slightly unnerving thought which suggests that possibly something outside the system and therefore eternally in its non-Mormon literal meaning is beyond our understanding.

[bcuzbcuz]

You are a caveman who encounters a lion.

(T) True belief. You have to run away or the lion is going to eat me.

(F) False belief. You are about to run a marathon, and the lion means "Start."

(F) False belief. The lion is a sweet little kitten and you want to pet it. The best way to pet it is to run away (Another false belief).

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up on the spot?

You believe in Lamarckianism then? Come to think of it, Lamarckianism doesn't change the game either, as it is concerned with survival as well.

This doesn't change the game either. Even if you posit a spectrum, natural selection (or whatever evolutionary mechanism you posit) reinforces beliefs that have low validity.

You need to go back and study your Lamarck theory a little more thoroughly. I have never stated any such belief and if you knew your stuff you would know that, among other things, giraffes don't grow longer necks so they can reach the top branches. That's a transmutation of a species. A theory I have never believed in, nor have I stated anything such.

Furthermore, you will need to CFR your statement: "natural selection (or whatever evolutionary mechanism you posit) reinforces beliefs that have low validity."

Edited March 14, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[Stone holm]

Tell me again exactly how what we know what a frog is thinking? I mean yes there may be some instinctive reactions, we have some instinctive hardwired reactions as well, but you really have no way as yet to know what I am thinking. We may be getting closer to being able to do that with technology, but we certainly aren't there yet. And I sincerely doubt that we have any clue what or how a frog thinks -- heck, I rarely can figure out how my wife thinks, let alone a frog. Why would we draw the conclusion that frogs zap flies because they like zapping small flying objects, rather than thinking that small flying objects represent food. Because we can trick them? My brother once drank a bottle of furniture polish because it was red and he thought it was red creme soda -- does that mean he only drinks red things -- oh gee there is some red lets go insert red into our mouth. No he made a mistake, he was just a little tike. Well frogs are permanently little tikes so they are easier to fool and their sensory analysis is different than ours.

[Yep]

(1) Our cognitive faculties are reliable.

(2) No God exists and no forces exist outside our brains.

(3) Our brains evolved to help us survive, not to give us true beliefs.

(4) Therefore, our brains are not reliable for truth.

(5) Therefore, (4) and (1) contradict.

(6) Therefore, if evolution is true, atheism is false.

(7) Because evolution is true, atheism is false.

An illustration of (3):

You are a frog standing on a lily pad and a fly zips by.

(T) True belief: The fly is yummy. If I eat the fly it will strengthen and nourish my body.

(F) False belief: If I eat the fly, I will turn into a prince.

Natural selection will reinforce either belief.

-Alvin Plantinga

I think 1 is an error. There is plenty of evidence that this is not true. Our cognitive faculties are only as reliable as the data received, and then our history and physical state mitigate what reliability may exist.

[Hamilton Porter]

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up on the spot?

Those are Plantinga's examples.

You need to go back and study your Lamarck theory a little more thoroughly. I have never stated any such belief and if you knew your stuff you would know that, among other things, giraffes don't grow longer necks so they can reach the top branches. That's a transmutation of a species. A theory I have never believed in, nor have I stated anything such.

I didn't say you believe in Lamarckian. You challenged me for adding natural selection to the equation. If we didn't evolve via natural selection tell me what the dam mechanism through which we evolved is. If we didn't evolve by natural selection, how did we evolve?

Furthermore, you will need to CFR your statement: "natural selection (or whatever evolutionary mechanism you posit) reinforces beliefs that have low validity."

Evolution reinforces beliefs with high validity, evolution reinforces beliefs with low validity. As long as it helps you survive, it doesn't care.

[Hamilton Porter]

I think 1 is an error. There is plenty of evidence that this is not true. Our cognitive faculties are only as reliable as the data received, and then our history and physical state mitigate what reliability may exist.

Yep: Our cognitive faculties aregenerally reliable. If not, then you still wouldn't be able to know whether atheism is true. Hence, atheism is still irrational.

[bu11fr0g]

The error is in all-or-none thinking in regards to truth.

I believe there is actually a selection bias AGAINST complete regard to truth.

Optism has a positive selection bias because it encourages us to try in bery unlikely circumstances.

Religious beliefss, even when false, are can be a form iof optimism.

A similar construct:

1)humans are the crown of evolutionary development of cognitive function

2) there is an evolutionary pressure in favor of accurate sensory reception

3) humans do not have the best sense of smell or sight

And accurate sensory input is necessary for improved cognition

4) therefore evolution is false

[bcuzbcuz]

Mormons couldn't possibly have mankind as the top of the devlopmental ladder. That would mean there could be no additional development to be godlike. We would already be there. Not likely.

[bcuzbcuz]

(1) Our cognitive faculties are reliable.

What is a cognitive faculty? No, seriously. Define a cognitive faculty so I can know how you see this equation. I know that cognition is a process, and I get it that you're using cognitive as an adjective, but what is a cognitive faculty? Where are they located on your body? How do they differ from our five senses? If I smell something rotten, how does this awareness turn into cognitive awareness?

[mfbukowski]

This is an example of why philosophic logic can take you down a black hole. While it is true that neurology may hardwire us to believe in something -- which I believe is probably what the Light of Christ is all about. But to take that further to say okay, because our senses are tend to fool us -- for example many people were at one time fooled into believing the Sun orbited the Earth then we must say fooled once means you are always fooled. No that is not correct thinking. Better is the argument that we see things "darkly as through a smoky glass", which is an accurate assessment of the senses. With regards to materialism, I don't know as I would agree that because we believe in a material God that we are atheists in terms of original cause. I think we simply don't answer original cause. Lots of Mormons would be shocked with that position because they still cling to some sense that God created everything -- of course that is not the case and we know that is not the case from explicit doctrine. Does that mean there never was some original cause that caused everything to come into being? That I believe is something we have absolutely no clue about, and if Eliza Snow is correct in her hymn Hie Onto Kolob, the answer is that we are never going to know -- ever period. What exactly that signifies, I am not sure. But it is a slightly unnerving thought which suggests that possibly something outside the system and therefore eternally in its non-Mormon literal meaning is beyond our understanding.

Your post is confusing. You are uncertain about so many things- and that's fine- but then to condemn the very "philosophic logic" you use against itself just leaves no light whatsoever coming through that smoking glass.

[Hamilton Porter]

What is a cognitive faculty? No, seriously. Define a cognitive faculty so I can know how you see this equation. I know that cognition is a process, and I get it that you're using cognitive as an adjective, but what is a cognitive faculty? Where are they located on your body? How do they differ from our five senses? If I smell something rotten, how does this awareness turn into cognitive awareness?

How about we rephrase that to, "Our beliefs are reliable."

[Tarski]

(1) Our cognitive faculties are reliable.

(2) No God exists and no forces exist outside our brains.

(3) Our brains evolved to help us survive, not to give us true beliefs.

(4) Therefore, our brains are not reliable for truth.

(5) Therefore, (4) and (1) contradict.

(6) Therefore, if evolution is true, atheism is false.

(7) Because evolution is true, atheism is false.

An illustration of (3):

You are a frog standing on a lily pad and a fly zips by.

(T) True belief: The fly is yummy. If I eat the fly it will strengthen and nourish my body.

(F) False belief: If I eat the fly, I will turn into a prince.

Natural selection will reinforce either belief.

-Alvin Plantinga

The proof does not go through for many reasons. One can tell a pretty good story about why humans in particular are pretty good at discovering truths.

The form as you have given it depends on the statements being black and white. Consider my amendments and see if we still get a conclusion:

(1) Our cognitive faculties are mostly reliable regarding things that matter most.

(2) No God exists and and forces do exist outside our brains. (this is a weird one)

(3) Our brains evolved to help us survive, not to give us true beliefs and yet, for humans, true beliefs about the relevant class of things are correlated strongly with survival. For example, the false belief that I can survive any gunshot wound to the head is not conducive to survival exactly because it is true that I cannot easily survive any gunshot wound to the head. Our beliefs about breathing and water, about food, about dangers and so on work mostly because they are true. False beliefs that help with survival can only do so under certain restricted conditions and are not the norm.

(4) Therefore, our brains are not perfectly reliable for truth but have a degree of reliability. We have however, discovered various abstract notions that allow us to by more systematic in our search for truth. Thus we are guided not just by our brains but, for example, by logic and evidence. These excert their own force on us and allow us for example, to identify illusions and misperceptions. They exert their force on us by their vary structure (we are not free to ignore logical implications once we derive them)

(5) Therefore, (4) and (1) do not directly contradict but are merely in tension.

(6) If evolution is true, atheism is false may still be true.

(7) Because evolution is true, atheism is false?????????? not

Edited March 22, 2013 by Tarski

[Hamilton Porter]

(3) Our brains evolved to help us survive, not to give us true beliefs and yet, for humans, true beliefs about the relevant class of things are correlated strongly with survival.

You can't know that, because your brain did not evolve to give you truth. I agree, that's the logical conclusion, but if God doesn't exist, you can't assume rationality at the outset. Darwin, for good reason, constantly doubted the reliability of his brain, since it evolved from that of lower animals. You have to make a rationality assumption if you are to make the bolded statement.

For example, the false belief that I can survive any gunshot wound to the head is not conducive to survival exactly because it is true that I cannot easily survive any gunshot wound to the head.

If you held the false belief when you see a gun you go run a marathon, that will help you survive too.

Our beliefs about breathing and water, about food, about dangers and so on work mostly because they are true. False beliefs that help with survival can only do so under certain restricted conditions and are not the norm.

Again, that's assuming your brain is reliable so you can reach that conclusion rationally. But your brain was never made to give you truth. You're assuming rationality if you are to assert that false beliefs only help survival sometimes.

(4) Therefore, our brains are not perfectly reliable for truth but have a degree of reliability. We have however, discovered various abstract notions that allow us to by more systematic in our search for truth. Thus we are guided not just by our brains but, for example, by logic and evidence. These excert their own force on us and allow us for example, to identify illusions and misperceptions. They exert their force on us by their vary structure (we are not free to ignore logical implications once we derive them)

(5) Therefore, (4) and (1) do not directly contradict but are merely in tension.

Same objection.

](6) If evolution is true, atheism is false may still be true.

(7) Because evolution is true, atheism is false?????????? not

Evolution and atheism are mutually defeating.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Hamilton Porter

[thesometimesaint]

"Evolution and atheism are mutually defeating".

Independent variables.

Evolution addresses neither theism nor atheism.

Neither theism nor atheism can address evolution. However theists and atheists alike can and do have any opinion on evolution they like.