The Coherence of Naturalism (Atheism)

[Haven]

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?

[Bust Nak]

I do not challenge whether evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a fitness function. I do challenge to what extent evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a truth function.

Does an accurate simulation of the world offer an evolutionary advantage? Does an increasingly accurate simulation of the world offer an evolutionary advantage over a lesser accurate one?

I think the answer is clearly yes to both these questions. This is the link between fitness and truth.

[theopoesis]

(1) Is there an objective morality?

Can you provide a methodology to show there is? How do you know? I can show that different societies have different sets of morals. That argues against the 'objective morality' viewpoint.

I'm in a head to head debate on the subject at the moment. My question is whether there is an evolutionary advantage to being able to answer questions of this nature, which would explain our ability to do so (in the negative or the affirmative).

(2) Does God exist?

Can you properly define God without going into a spasm of complex words that have multiple meanings and suffer from vagueness. The ignostic point of view has merit when it comes to this plain question.

First , you must define God in a plan an testable way.

I reject ignosticism as grounded in an outdated theory of semiotics. I refer you to Wittgenstein, Searle, Austin, etc.

Further, it would seem that language itself consists of words with multiple meanings and vagueness. Some (postmodernists) take this to suggest that all words are meaningless, and that meaning is a creation of the reader. To be consistent, it would seem the ignostic would need to apply the critique across the board and run the course of Derrida into deconstruction.

(3) What is truth?

Does this question even have meaning? "Truth" can either be defined as 'the simple facts of existence', or it could have a deeper metaphysical meaning that changes depending on who is talking. What do you mean by 'truth'?

(4) What is the nature of being?

What is meant by 'nature of being'?? The word being has very many definitions... and often, I noticed , people who deal with metaphysics will switch the meaning around so you don't know what they are actually talking about.. Does this question actually have meaning in and of itself?? Until it gets precisely defined, .. no.

(5) How do I know what I know?

That's a good question.. and the naturalist will say 'You don't ever know for certain, but you can assign probabilities based on testing'. I know , with pretty much certainity, that if I pick up a rock, and then let it go, it will accelerate towards the ground at approximately 32 feet per second per second. I know that, because it has been tested, repeatedly, and measured.

You're missing the entire point of my argument. I'm not asking you to answer these questions. I'm asking whether this sort of reasoning is evolutionarily advantageous.

I do not challenge whether evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a fitness function. I do challenge to what extent evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a truth function.

Why should evolutionary thoery explain that? That sounds like asking to what extent a plumber can explain the existence of electricity.

I'm responding to a particular claim by sayak. If our minds only function in a deterministic way, can we trust that they arrive at truth? Sayak said yes, pointing to an evolutionary algorithm. I claimed that this evolutionary algorithm explained fitness, not truth. If you don't agree with Sayak, why bother objecting to my response to Sayak? Obviously, my argument would not, in that case, apply to you.

[theopoesis]

I do not challenge whether evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a fitness function. I do challenge to what extent evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a truth function.

Does an accurate simulation of the world offer an evolutionary advantage? Does an increasingly accurate simulation of the world offer an evolutionary advantage over a lesser accurate one?

I think the answer is clearly yes to both these questions. This is the link between fitness and truth.

You might want to note the discussion between Haven and I on distinguishing between evolutionarily advantageous and evolutionarily non advantageous traits. As I said in that discussion in this very thread, "We must... classify some cognitive abilities as "non-survivial-oriented", (and) also as "insufficiently-survival oriented." In other words, some cognitive traits, though beneficial to survival, might be beneficial in such an insignificant way as to have little to no effect on the outputs of evolutionary natural selection." The question at hand is not whether evolution can explain a degree of "simulation" (to use your term) that frees us from solipsism. Clearly it does. The question is whether it can validate the sort of reasoning we frequently use in a debate forum like this in asking questions about ultimate truth, meaning, and morality. In that respect, I do not think that such a clear link between fitness and truth has been established.

[AquinasD]

You are confusing the process of reasoning with the conscious experience of reasoning.

How am I doing so?

If a "correctly constructed" process exists for decision making (choosing the correct result of addition for all additions, or choosing the next move in a chess game) that is "REASONING" whether or not the "Reasoning apparatus" is aware that a reasoning process is going on inside it.

So, reasoning is just following rules?

[sayak83]

Theopoesis:-

I am arguing that it is possible for evolution to make it possible for organisms like us to have an approximately accurate information of its surroundings (like trees, cars, roads, apples, stones, other animals and other humans) and to use this information intelligently to lead day to day lives (hunt well, grow crops, care for children, find water, avoid snakes and tigers, don't get run over by cars etc.). It is also clear that the kind of knowledge that would help us predict the future better (number sense...how many cows in the herd? idea of regularity....when do rains come? basic logic and probability....all past fires were too hot to touch, this one is likely to be the same) is also immensely advantageous.

So a great deal of of our fitness does rely in correctly understanding and predicting the environment we live in (a smoking mountain is likely to be a volcano about to blow...RUN).

Plantiga's argument was if we were physical systems born from evolution, we can never reliably learn anything that is true. The above examples show that there are a lot of areas where we CAN get reliable knowledge even if we are natural systems.

It is an entirely different question all-together whether we have the ability to reliably learn ALL TRUE STATEMENTS. I don't think anybody on earth is claiming human beings have the potential to be omniscient. Naturalism is merely claiming that the scientific method of gaining knowledge (experiment, observation, inference, deduction, falsification) from what we observe is a technique that is successful because the methods used are the kind of methods we use in our day to day life and are hence truth tracking.

In fact your questions are the kind of things that create "DO NOT COMPUTE" sign in the human brain with pure garbage as output (5000 years of speculative metaphysics and theology on nature of God and essence of things is proof). Even highly abstract things need some concreteness of properties (like properties of numbers, vectors, sets) for our brain to work effectively.

My counter is simple:- IF our brain was really designed for truth tracking then classical physics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, imaginary numbers, infinite sets...all these things would appear equally easy to understand. They are not. Why? Because some of the branches are more relevant in our kind of environment than others.

Once we do discover the truth, we can usually stick to it because we can then perceive that it works (like clean water does reduce cholera, further experiments do give the answers that the true theory tells it should be...like we can ship around the world showing that the world is round.) There have been thousands of people who stated theories and ideas that were utterly wrong, they were discarded because wrong ideas give bad results. Newton believed in alchemy and did lot of work in it...they were discarded because alchemy does not work (or gold would be dirt cheap today). This "workability" that affects our survival quality is the best test if something is true or not (does a common Euro Currency work???).

[Goat]

(1) Is there an objective morality?

Can you provide a methodology to show there is? How do you know? I can show that different societies have different sets of morals. That argues against the 'objective morality' viewpoint.

I'm in a head to head debate on the subject at the moment. My question is whether there is an evolutionary advantage to being able to answer questions of this nature, which would explain our ability to do so (in the negative or the affirmative).

(2) Does God exist?

Can you properly define God without going into a spasm of complex words that have multiple meanings and suffer from vagueness. The ignostic point of view has merit when it comes to this plain question.

First , you must define God in a plan an testable way.

I reject ignosticism as grounded in an outdated theory of semiotics. I refer you to Wittgenstein, Searle, Austin, etc.

And I reject Wittgenstien, Serle Austin due to them playing irrelevant word games that , well, really don't answer the question. See Paul Kurtz, .

Playing that kind of metaphysical word games does not answer the question. Reject it all you want.. but.. one thing I noticed you DIDN'T do is provide a coherent and testable definition of God.

Do that.. and I might accept it. Don't do that, well, there is no way to distinguish your belief from the sheerest fantasy. It might be right.. but there is no way you can show it.

Further, it would seem that language itself consists of words with multiple meanings and vagueness. Some (postmodernists) take this to suggest that all words are meaningless, and that meaning is a creation of the reader. To be consistent, it would seem the ignostic would need to apply the critique across the board and run the course of Derrida into deconstruction.

Yes, some do that.. some (mostly postmodernists) Strive to get an incomprehensible and highly stylized way of saying things to hide the fact they are saying nothing. Derrida is one of those. It sounds fantastic, but means NOTHING.

(3) What is truth?

Does this question even have meaning? "Truth" can either be defined as 'the simple facts of existence', or it could have a deeper metaphysical meaning that changes depending on who is talking. What do you mean by 'truth'?

(4) What is the nature of being?

What is meant by 'nature of being'?? The word being has very many definitions... and often, I noticed , people who deal with metaphysics will switch the meaning around so you don't know what they are actually talking about.. Does this question actually have meaning in and of itself?? Until it gets precisely defined, .. no.

(5) How do I know what I know?

That's a good question.. and the naturalist will say 'You don't ever know for certain, but you can assign probabilities based on testing'. I know , with pretty much certainity, that if I pick up a rock, and then let it go, it will accelerate towards the ground at approximately 32 feet per second per second. I know that, because it has been tested, repeatedly, and measured.

You're missing the entire point of my argument. I'm not asking you to answer these questions. I'm asking whether this sort of reasoning is evolutionarily advantageous.

If it works, and provides answers, then yes.. if it is a byproduct of another feature (intelligence) that did help us along the way, then no. Ask again if we survive the next 500 years as a species with our vaunted 'intellect' and our amazing technology. If it destroys us as a species, then obviously, no. If we survive, then it might be a neutral or an advantageous.. It could very well be the side effect of something that IS advantageous (the ability to see patterns).

I do not challenge whether evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a fitness function. I do challenge to what extent evolutionary theory can explain the existence of a truth function.

Why should evolutionary thoery explain that? That sounds like asking to what extent a plumber can explain the existence of electricity.

I'm responding to a particular claim by sayak. If our minds only function in a deterministic way, can we trust that they arrive at truth? Sayak said yes, pointing to an evolutionary algorithm. I claimed that this evolutionary algorithm explained fitness, not truth. If you don't agree with Sayak, why bother objecting to my response to Sayak? Obviously, my argument would not, in that case, apply to you.

Well, I don't know if our mind works in a predetermined factor or not. Some physicists think that everything is predetermined, but unpredictable, due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I don't see how that can be determined with the available data we have. It is a possibility.. but I don't see how it can be tesetd at this current time. .

[Haven]

And I reject Wittgenstien, Serle Austin due to them playing irrelevant word games that , well, really don't answer the question. See Paul Kurtz, .

Your Kurtz reference is missing.

Yes, some do that.. some (mostly postmodernists) Strive to get an incomprehensible and highly stylized way of saying things to hide the fact they are saying nothing. Derrida is one of those. It sounds fantastic, but means NOTHING.

I certainly wouldn't say that Derrida said "nothing," but that's a discussion for another topic.

Why do you feel words have objective meanings? You can't assume this without argument.

If it works, and provides answers, then yes. if it is a byproduct of another feature (intelligence) that did help us along the way, then no. Ask again if we survive the next 500 years as a species with our vaunted 'intellect' and our amazing technology. If it destroys us as a species, then obviously, no. If we survive, then it might be a neutral or an advantageous.. It could very well be the side effect of something that IS advantageous (the ability to see patterns).

This is an appeal to strong pragmatism, and strong pragmatism entails contradiction:

P1: "truth = what works"
P2: "what works = what produces satisfactory results"
P3: It is possible for false information to produce satisfactory results
P4: It is possible for false information to produce "what works"
P5: It is possible for false information to produce truth
C: (P5) contradicts (P1)

[Goat]

Why do you feel words have objective meanings? You can't assume this without argument.

Words can have objective meanings.. or rather refer to things that are objective.

When someone says 'Newton's law of gravity', I know objectively, they are referring to the objective behavior of the acceleration of gravity when things are dropped.

Now, those words are subjective to a culture and to context. That is why when someone uses terminology, particularly when they are pulling metaphysical explanations, I try to pin down what they mean.

[Bust Nak]

You might want to note the discussion between Haven and I on distinguishing between evolutionarily advantageous and evolutionarily non advantageous traits. As I said in that discussion in this very thread, "We must... classify some cognitive abilities as "non-survivial-oriented", (and) also as "insufficiently-survival oriented." In other words, some cognitive traits, though beneficial to survival, might be beneficial in such an insignificant way as to have little to no effect on the outputs of evolutionary natural selection." The question at hand is not whether evolution can explain a degree of "simulation" (to use your term) that frees us from solipsism. Clearly it does.

Which is easier to build, a general computer or a computer that can do everything a general computer can except calculate the value of pi to 10 decimal points? Alternatively, if you want to build this "almost general" computer, would you build a general computer then put a artifical limit on calculating pi, or build a computer with specific solver for each maths problem explicitly and leave out a solver for pi?

I expect a brain evolved to do general problem solving be able to deal with philosophical questions. The "non-survivial/insufficiently-survival oriented" are simple side effect of a brain capable of running a mind.

The question is whether it can validate the sort of reasoning we frequently use in a debate forum like this in asking questions about ultimate truth, meaning, and morality. In that respect, I do not think that such a clear link between fitness and truth has been established.

What makes the reasoning in answering these question different to the reasoning required in answering what is the best plan to keep your family feed over winter?

[Furrowed Brow]

P1: "truth = what works"
P2: "what works = what produces satisfactory results"
P3: It is possible for false information to produce satisfactory results
P4: It is possible for false information to produce "what works"
P5: It is possible for false information to produce truth
C: (P5) contradicts (P1)

How about:

• P1: "truth = what works"
  P2: "what works = not unsatisfactory"
  P3: It is possible for false information to produce unsatisfactory results
  Conclusion 1: with false information it is not possible to safely conclude the result is not unsatisfactory
  Conclusion 2: it is not possible for false information to imply truth

I think that works better.