One of the major criticisms of metaphysical naturalism (and by extension, atheism) is that it is logically inconsistent, with some even going as far as to say that it is self-undermining. This criticism, which comes primarily from Reformed Christian thinkers such as Cornelius Van Til, Alvin Plantinga, John Frame, and our own theopoesis, is due to the fact that (according to Reformed thinkers) naturalism cannot account for several features of human existence, such as (objective) morality, existential meaning, consciousness, free will, and aesthetic taste.
Plantinga goes further, saying that a combinstion of evolution and naturalism would lead us to develop cognitive faculties geared for survival rather than truth, meaning that, on naturalism, we would be unable to know whether or not any of our beliefs -- including naturalism itself -- are true, meaning naturalism defeats itself.
As an alternative to naturalism, Reformed thinkers believe Christian theism can account for true cognitive faculties, teleology, morality, beauty, etc., and that it should therefore be preferred over atheistic naturalism. They use a presuppositional approach to illustrate this, arguing that Christian presuppositions are required for a coherent worldview.
Atheists, in my experience, rarely respond to these criticisms. When they (we) do, they tend to defend a naturalistic account of cognitive reliability while writing off morality, aesthetics, knowledge, etc. as subjective or illusory. Naturalistic thinkers also tend to point toward philosophical problems with theism, such as Michael Tooley's (2008) update of the problem of natural evil. Additionally, one major naturalistic response to this comes from philosopher Feng Ye, who attempts to give a naturalistic account of cognitive reliability. The book "Naturalism Defeated?" (2001) was written in response to Plantinga's argument.
Debate question: Are the Reformed thinkers right? Is naturalism coherent? Can atheists account for morality, purpose, etc. on naturalism? Are Christian presuppositions necessary for a coherent worldview? Does Plantinga's argument succeed? Is theism coherent?
The Coherence of Naturalism (Atheism)
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
On Ayer.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayer/
When you are talking about ontological naturalism, its better to understand what the views are
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
On Plantinga's argument...since there exists search algorithms (of evolutionary kind) that can reliable aim at true solutions in a space of possibilities it becomes highly probably that such systems can exist and we are one (being fashioned by evolution.) Also it is easy to reject Plantinga's basic argument that beliefs do not have effects since by causal closure, beliefs too are characterized by physical states in our brain. This is not as paradoxical as it sounds. The function of addition 2+2=4, say may be done by different physical systems (different types of computer architecture for instance) and yet for each case there is a similarity (but not identity) in physical state evolution that makes it the same 2+2=4 operation. Yet it does not violate causal closure and the addition operation does have an effect on the future state of the computing machine.
Therefore
1) Beliefs inhere in physical states
2) Because of this inherence, beliefs do have effects in the future evolution of physical states
3)Therefore beliefs have direct relevance to future fate of physical systems like survivability etc.
4) The "correct" kinds of beliefs will therefore enhance survivability
5) Beliefs that correspond to truth tracking or reality tracking is a usually (though not necessarily always) have that kind of survival enhancing "correctness"
6) Evolutionary systems are capable of reliably producing such truth-tracking information algorithms
7) Therefore Physical systems coming into existence through evolutionary route would most probably have such algorithms in place
8) We are such systems
9) Therefore proved.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayer/
When you are talking about ontological naturalism, its better to understand what the views are
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/
It will be worth briefly rehearsing this history, if only to forestall a common reaction to ontological naturalism. It is sometimes suggested that ontological naturalism rests, not on reasoned argument, but on some kind of unargued commitment, some ultimate decision to nail one's philosophical colours to the naturalist mast.[3] And this diagnosis seems to be supported by the historical contingency of naturalist doctrines, and in particular by the fact that they have become widely popular only in the past few decades. However, familiarity with the relevant scientific history casts the matter in a different light. It turns out that naturalist doctrines, far from varying with ephemeral fashion, are closely responsive to received scientific opinion about the range of causes that can have physical effects.
This led to the widespread acceptance of the doctrine now known as the causal closure or the causal completeness of the physical realm, according to which all physical effects can be accounted for by basic physical causes (where physical can be understood as referring to some list of fundamental forces).[4]
Sometimes it is suggested that the indeterminism of modern quantum mechanics creates room for sui generis non-physical causes to influence the physical world. However, even if quantum mechanics implies that some physical effects are themselves undetermined, it provides no reason to doubt a quantum version of the causal closure thesis, to the effect that the chances of those effects are fully fixed by prior physical circumstances. And this alone is enough to rule out sui generis non-physical causes. For such sui generis causes, if they are to be genuinely efficiacious, must presumably make an independent difference to the chances of physical effects, and this in itself would be inconsistent with the quantum causal closure claim that such chances are already fixed by prior physical circumstances. Once more, it seems that anything that makes a difference to the physical realm must itself be physical.
In summary, physicalism stands or falls on the causal closure argument, that physical effects are only caused by other physical events. However this argument is supported by literary massive amounts of data and its counter proposition has no data backing it.If the majority are right, and physicalism about conscious states is not ruled out by independent arguments, then physicalism seems clearly preferable to epiphenomenalism. In itself, epiphenomenalism is not an attractive position. It requires us to suppose that conscious states, even though they are caused by processes in the physical world, have no effects on that world. This is a very odd kind of causal structure. Nature displays no other examples of such one-way causal intercourse between realms. By contrast, a physicalist naturalism about conscious states will integrate the mental realm with the causal unfolding of the spatiotemporal world in an entirely familiar way. Given this, general principles of theory choice would seem to argue strongly for physicalism over epiphenomenalism.[9]
On Plantinga's argument...since there exists search algorithms (of evolutionary kind) that can reliable aim at true solutions in a space of possibilities it becomes highly probably that such systems can exist and we are one (being fashioned by evolution.) Also it is easy to reject Plantinga's basic argument that beliefs do not have effects since by causal closure, beliefs too are characterized by physical states in our brain. This is not as paradoxical as it sounds. The function of addition 2+2=4, say may be done by different physical systems (different types of computer architecture for instance) and yet for each case there is a similarity (but not identity) in physical state evolution that makes it the same 2+2=4 operation. Yet it does not violate causal closure and the addition operation does have an effect on the future state of the computing machine.
Therefore
1) Beliefs inhere in physical states
2) Because of this inherence, beliefs do have effects in the future evolution of physical states
3)Therefore beliefs have direct relevance to future fate of physical systems like survivability etc.
4) The "correct" kinds of beliefs will therefore enhance survivability
5) Beliefs that correspond to truth tracking or reality tracking is a usually (though not necessarily always) have that kind of survival enhancing "correctness"
6) Evolutionary systems are capable of reliably producing such truth-tracking information algorithms
7) Therefore Physical systems coming into existence through evolutionary route would most probably have such algorithms in place
8) We are such systems
9) Therefore proved.
-
Waiting4evidence
- Sage
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:52 am
Post #52
I don't claim to be anywhere near knowledgeable enough on this topic, but the situation seems pretty simple to me.
A bunch of bronze age nomadic barbarians who didn't have a clue about practically anything, and knew less about the world than any 7 year old knows today, scribbled some crazy stuff on sheep skin.
I don't think you need to be an expert in dragon lore to determine that there isn't an invisible dragon in my basement.
And I don't think you need to be an expert in theology, philosophy or science to determine that the story of the great flood is a fairy tale.
Why are there so many educated and smart people dignifying the notion that Moses talked to a burning bush? The story is either made up, or the guy was hallucinating!
A bunch of bronze age nomadic barbarians who didn't have a clue about practically anything, and knew less about the world than any 7 year old knows today, scribbled some crazy stuff on sheep skin.
I don't think you need to be an expert in dragon lore to determine that there isn't an invisible dragon in my basement.
And I don't think you need to be an expert in theology, philosophy or science to determine that the story of the great flood is a fairy tale.
Why are there so many educated and smart people dignifying the notion that Moses talked to a burning bush? The story is either made up, or the guy was hallucinating!
Post #53
Tex: Yet another Character that was confirmed by Christ. So again, we as Christians believe in who Lord Jesus is. Therefore Moses was real. Just as King Davis, Abraham, Jacob......In Christ the OT is fulfilled.Waiting4evidence wrote: I don't claim to be anywhere near knowledgeable enough on this topic, but the situation seems pretty simple to me.
A bunch of bronze age nomadic barbarians who didn't have a clue about practically anything, and knew less about the world than any 7 year old knows today, scribbled some crazy stuff on sheep skin.
I don't think you need to be an expert in dragon lore to determine that there isn't an invisible dragon in my basement.
And I don't think you need to be an expert in theology, philosophy or science to determine that the story of the great flood is a fairy tale.
Why are there so many educated and smart people dignifying the notion that Moses talked to a burning bush? The story is either made up, or the guy was hallucinating!
Post #54
The reason is simple. Demonstrating something counter-intuitive (like mind states are brain states) does require good evidence based argumentation. It easier to dismantle religious worldviews than to construct an adequate naturalistic one.Waiting4evidence wrote: I don't claim to be anywhere near knowledgeable enough on this topic, but the situation seems pretty simple to me.
A bunch of bronze age nomadic barbarians who didn't have a clue about practically anything, and knew less about the world than any 7 year old knows today, scribbled some crazy stuff on sheep skin.
I don't think you need to be an expert in dragon lore to determine that there isn't an invisible dragon in my basement.
And I don't think you need to be an expert in theology, philosophy or science to determine that the story of the great flood is a fairy tale.
Why are there so many educated and smart people dignifying the notion that Moses talked to a burning bush? The story is either made up, or the guy was hallucinating!
-
theopoesis
- Guru
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:08 pm
- Location: USA
Post #55
Google's algorithm, though determinate, is designed to produced effective outcomes. Google's algorithm cannot aim itself, and yet it is aimed by its designer.sayak83 wrote: Therefore Google's search algorithm simply cannot output the most relevant search results for the words you type because that deterministic algorithm simply cannot aim at finding the true solutions of your search query. Yet it does.
Refuted.
Your argument is therefore refuted.
Argument unrefuted.
Post #56
evolutionary search algorithms are undesigned or mimic naturally occuring evolutionary systems (mutation+selection)
http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex.html
refutation invalid.
And I used original google search algorithms as refuting the argument that deterministic systems simply cannot aim at truth, not if that particular deterministic system was itself designed or not.
Evolutionary Search algorithms are naturally occuring and has now been mimic-ed by us and shown to be successful in searching for truth (or fitness however defined).
I rest my case.
http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex.html
refutation invalid.
And I used original google search algorithms as refuting the argument that deterministic systems simply cannot aim at truth, not if that particular deterministic system was itself designed or not.
Evolutionary Search algorithms are naturally occuring and has now been mimic-ed by us and shown to be successful in searching for truth (or fitness however defined).
I rest my case.
Post #57
There must be some fundamental level of existence upon which our universe, deterministic or not, is based. Unless its nature is also probabilistic, probability above will need to be accounted for by some means, which doesn't seem make make too much sense to me. If the fundamental level of existence is itself probabilistic in nature, then it would seem to me that questioning the necessity of its existence is inane.[color=orange]theopoesis[/color] wrote:Yep, this part right here is what I don't understand. Little help?[color=green]AkiThePirate[/color] wrote: It only becomes a problem if one attempts to terminate the probabilistic process at some point. Arguably not doing so is also a problem, but I'll give that some more thought later.
I think the answer here lies in the construction of the mind combined with the macroscopic dissociation from randomness.[color=darkred]theopoesis[/color] wrote:Not only do we need to explain why a causally natural thought chain arrives at truth, we have to explain how this causal chain's conclusions are valid if they probabilistically could have been otherwise.
On the scale at which neurons exist, happenings are almost deterministic, so I'm not completely sure that thought really 'could' be another way. That the mind is capable of finding truth may be evolutionarily explainable, but I don't know yet.
Wow, and I thought 9-6 in college was bad...[color=indigo]theopoesis[/color] wrote:Idk if that makes any sense or not. I'm getting a headache (worked nights in addition to the normal 7-5 this week) so I think I'm going to tap out for the next few days and sleep. I'll check back when I return.
Post #58
You're still assuming that the search algorithm, however it was put together, is a kind of reasoning.sayak83 wrote:Evolutionary Search algorithms are naturally occuring and has now been mimic-ed by us and shown to be successful in searching for truth (or fitness however defined).
I rest my case.
For a truly religious man nothing is tragic.
~Ludwig Wittgenstein
~Ludwig Wittgenstein
-
Haven
Post #59
Two things:[color=green]sayak83[/color] wrote:Evolutionary Search algorithms are naturally occuring and has now been mimic-ed by us and shown to be successful in searching for truth (or fitness however defined).
1) Evolutionary search algorithms are still designed. Even though they "evolved," they still would not exist if not for human intervention, i.e., inventing and designing computers, developing storage space, writing code, etc. This is not analogous with the human mind, which exists (assuming naturalism is true) due to completely mindless, unguided processes.
2) Search algorithms are not conscious, self-aware, or capable of reasoning. They are computer programs. This is not analogous to the human brain.
Post #60
Reasoning follows logic and algorithm is logic (with all AND, NOT, TRUE, FALSE, OR, NAND etc.) digitized. If you have a better idea of what reasoning is if not logic, expand.
Lets get some clarity here:-
1) Q1:- No physical system can have truth finding properties. This I have disproved by referring to algorithms.
1) Q2:- All such physical systems need to be designed by the designer.
The idea of emergent computation is quite well established, the simple idea is bits of matter can organize themselves into computational systems naturally under many different conditions
http://books.google.com/books?id=7Ff6Tq ... on&f=false
By the way, your argument that because the rules by which evolutionary algorithms find the optimal solution as coded by humans in a computer, all such algorithms that exist in nature out there must be designed is wrong. It is because these algorithms exploit natural rules of mutation and selection, that they succeed and this therefore shows that natural systems (like the cell or the brain) that are also the product of the same rules will have this capability emerging automatically in them.
Lets get some clarity here:-
1) Q1:- No physical system can have truth finding properties. This I have disproved by referring to algorithms.
1) Q2:- All such physical systems need to be designed by the designer.
The idea of emergent computation is quite well established, the simple idea is bits of matter can organize themselves into computational systems naturally under many different conditions
http://books.google.com/books?id=7Ff6Tq ... on&f=false
By the way, your argument that because the rules by which evolutionary algorithms find the optimal solution as coded by humans in a computer, all such algorithms that exist in nature out there must be designed is wrong. It is because these algorithms exploit natural rules of mutation and selection, that they succeed and this therefore shows that natural systems (like the cell or the brain) that are also the product of the same rules will have this capability emerging automatically in them.
