An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - Alvin Plantinga at USC
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Alvin Plantinga, known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and Christian apologetics, argues that some can know that God exists as a basic belief. | University of Southern California, 10/25/2005 | Explore more at www.veritas.org.
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.org/newsletter-yt
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
SUBSCRIBE: / subscription_. .
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
Holy shit that was paaainful listening to the Q&A section of the lecture. It was like the students weren't even listening. This video should be evidence that philosophy needs to be part of the curriculum.
Yeah I completely agree and I feel the same way about many people in the comment section.
Whether you agree or not with Plantinga, you gotta admire the guy's patience and graciousness when interacting with the student's questions, all of whom (the ones that asked questions at least) apparently did not understand his argument.
PracticalPhilosophy
Oh my....LOL
PracticalPhilosophy That's a close approximation.
PracticalPhilosophy The Lakers suck, and Jim Buss will see to it that they continue to suck.
(btw I deny the charges of closed mindedness, being dumb, of ignoring reason, of thinking wishfully, etc.)
@@LeviPaladin Lol.
Watching this because HPS 200 is making me
same
bruh
I need 3% more for CR, pray for me.
@@nyroc2134 did we receive the grade for essay2?
@@suiseic8562 nah not yet.. I'm assuming I got near zero there unfortunately. I was doing well before that assignment actually. Anyways goodluck to y'all working on this one
This is an extremely well thought-out argument.
+Kertesian Taker Define "idiot" and then make a formal argument supporting your assertion.
***** Second time;) Define "idiot" and then make a formal argument supporting your assertion.
No, it's a very poorly thought out argument. See my critiques above.
@@snuzebuster Your assertions equal shit.
@@mytuber81 If he where to define “idiot” without regard for how it is popularly defined, or if he did not take any trouble to separate, in the minds of his readers, the popular use of the word from the definition which he wanted to attach to it, he would almost certainly mislead anyone who heard his argument.
It would be easy to commit the fallacy of equivocation where the error stems from using the middle term in two senses. It seems rational but it’s really just a pun.
Im not certain what the point of your reply was, but the suggestion that all formal arguments are fabricated to support our biases is doomed to failure. the same trick was attempted by the sophists to undermine true philosophy and reason, and the refutation of it is as old as Plato.
Absolutely hilarious to hear the questioners repeat his argument back to him thinking they had found a contradiction.
You have a darker sense of humor, then. It makes me sad to hear them. It’s not their fault. Naturalism has a tight grip on our schools.
@@elijahbachrach6579 what would you replace it with, theism? Lol!
no! just dont teach our kids that God (or anything like God) definitely doesnt exist! lol. It doesnt have to be replaced with some other deep philosophical world view. Thats for the Parents at home to do (assuming its a public school)@@osmosis321
at least they can have a class discussion about EAAN when learning evolution.
@@osmosis321 Be neutral, PRE classes which are actually good and useful and make you think.
For those of you having a difficult time grasping what Plantinga is saying, think of it this way. In the Matrix, humans have false beliefs, but their neurophysiology still functions in a manner that produces a type of behavior. If the world is not in fact the way we perceive that it is, but we perceive it in such a way that it does not hinder behavior that is conducive to our existence, then the truth content of our beliefs are irrelevant.
Indeed it is such a profoundly simple and elegant argument that the only course of action left for the atheist to take is to pretend she doesn't understand the argument and by doing so she can give herself an excuse to attack a strawman.
since when can you speak for all humans? apart from not being able to perceive reality with any warrant, like being stuck in the matrix, you also dont have any grant for knowing that you arent alone in this world being surrounded by mindless humans who only seem to be able to comprehend physical reality as you do.
reapheavystorm What is your point?
Rodion Raskolnikov
my point is that naturalists are one messed up group of people who accept impossible ideas without much reflection.
Rodion Raskolnikov great 👍! Thanks
Wow. Nobody in the audience understood Plantinga at all.
It is full of naturalists... What did you expect? Philosophical and epistemological understanding?
David Lara99 not all naturalists are stupid
@@gustavom6615 I am not saying that, although the philosophical conception itself has logical flaws, I am saying that those who asked him at this conference does not understand neither evolution nor their own worldview.
David Lara99 oh ok
A priori rejection of T and dogmatic tethering to N despite untenable internal contradictions.
Who was that student who left the microphone saying "err, ahh... OK, whatever."? That was rude. I hope his peers told him how inhospitable that comment was. Why would you want to act dismissively toward a renowned academic who came to speak at your school?
Elijah Bachrach Alvin said that academia was full of naturalist. The student did that to get brownie points with his circle jerk of pompous arrogant classmates. Plantinga is like acid to these atheist lol.
Question and answer section was unbearable. Goes to show that just about anyone can go to college these days
Uwot Mate that was exactly my thoughts... it's always so dreadful to listen to the questions sadly...
Uwot Mate Stick the tampon out of your ass, tampon boy!
MEN WORRYING ABOUT MEN
@@EddieRuiz-l5c i think you've been using tampons wrong
Yes, it was. Killing mediocrity.
Plantinga ripped naturalists to shreds and they react by tossing in a bunch of red herrings. Typical. Hmm
I've got a red herring in my pants that you can has. lmao
Are you kidding me? Plantinga's argument grossly over simplifies the picture and then draws bogus conclusions from those over simplifications. Yes, it's conceivable that "Paul" could survive that one survival challenge because he just happened to randomly hold two innane beliefs that luckily coincide to produce an adaptive reaction to the situation. However, no individual is going to survive one challenge and then pass their genes on to the next generation, and surer than anything Paul's screwed up cognitive faculties are going to get him killed and probably sooner rather than later. Yes, would expect an uneducated savage's ideas about things far removed from daily experience that have little to no direct bearing on survival to probably be largely unreliable. However, naturalism is not the musings of an ignorant savage, it is the consensus worldview of the modern scientific community based on logic, math and science --tools that we've developed over millennia of cultural evolution--and mountains of scientific evidence amassed over the past few centuries by some of the greatest minds in human history. As such, there is no good reason to be radically skeptical about the truth of this worldview. EAAN is a major FAIL.
@César Rabbit lol typical response problem is ppl who bring arguments against evolution do so because they have a good grasp of it. The proponents are the ones who cling on to it religiously.
@Rafal Omnom Inintelligible grammar. Were you born in a junkyard?
@@futile-evenings Just the opposite. People that bring arguments against evolution, typically has very little grasp of it. Those that have a good grasp of evolution, see how ridiculous arguments against it are.
What snotty audience members and questions/responses to his having answered those questions.
Mediocre humans.
i hate speeches with a dumb question tagged at the end from audience members. This is how you know atheism and naturalism are a religion, people will defend the belief against reason and logic and get upset when their religion is in question. These are the signs of a religious ideology not a fact or theory.
For instance if i was to question the law of gravity people would just laugh, nobody would get upset or angry because i have done nothing to their religious belief by saying it, but if you attack evolution or naturalism its instant belief defending time, AKA hammer time.
In both cases theism and naturalism the persons react the same exact way when their belief system comes under attack, very defensive and there must be an explanation even if i do not know it now to save it. The major difference is the theist at least knows he has a religion.
Joshua Hults
The same is true when you discuss politics or various social issues though. And sometimes art or matters of taste. Are these religions too?
I would just see that as an indication that a person feels strongly about said issue, that it's an important part of their identity, that's why they get passionate about it.
I don't see how that warrants any of these to be considered religion.
***** No this is a different response than what you get from art or taste. This is the " Your stepping on my worldview " response.
Surely you can see the difference between a worldview being stepped on and someones favorite painting being critiqued.
Joshua Hults
_This is the " Your stepping on my worldview " response._
That's exactly what I meant though. Worldview =/= religion.
(and sure, this response will be uncommon when you're criticizing someone's favourite piece of art or something like that, but not unheard of either... but that's a minor, unimportant point, really)
"people will defend the belief against reason and logic"
- lol.. you think that atheists are against reason and logic.. wow. HOW STRANGE
There's a grain of truth there. However, I think another factor is at play. That is, it is much, much easier to recognize that an argument is bad than it is explain of even find exactly why it is bad. EAAN is a bad argument and I've explained why in several posts here. But if I had just heard the argument and tried to address it I'd probably have a hard time and fall down some of the same holes the audience members did.
That 1st questioner got smoked and all she could say is "I disagree".
I never took philosophy. Just curious; is this typical…is this a good example of what I missed? I am serious and not looking for an altercation.
The most honest take on this argument is that, at best, it provides reason to think the epistemic probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable under the assumption of E&N is inscrutable. But if the epistemic probability is inscrutable then the actual probability may just as well be high as low and so it does not provide any sort of defeater for the belief in N under the assumption of E&N. Frankly I think the case is worse than that for the argument as I don't even buy the arguments that naturalistic evolution (biological AND social evolution included) would be unlikely to produce reliable cognitive faculties. I'm not going to argue that again as I have several times already in these comments.
@César Rabbit Boring, repetitive. Next.
If the probability is inscrutable, then it may be actually high or low, but we wouldn't know. In case it's high, we wouldn't have any reasons to reject N. In case it's low, we couldn't rationally adopt any particular belief be it N, E or T, because R could be applied to every single one of them ; hence, we would have to withhold judgement on any belief. But because we're under the assumption that the probability is inscrutable, we can't rationally pick between 'high' and 'low', thus we can't pick between N and T, which means we have to withhold judgement on the truth of N. Anyone who does not withhold judgement and believes in N would be irrational in such a scenario.
@César Rabbit It seems to me that methodological N would be fine ; it's only metaphysical N that is prohibited here. Mind expanding a little?
@César Rabbit Maybe he doesn't want his argument to be applied methodological naturalism. From context, I thought it was obvious he's speaking only about metaphysical naturalism
@César Rabbit, ad hominien, I think, because I read many such comments as the one you presented, and there is a common thread: fear. I understand why some people are so preoccuppied with controlling the debate: who wants a 'Divine' foot lodging itself in one's door to threaten one's 'beliefs' about the world? I think we are 'whistlin' past the graveyard.
The beliefs of humanity are ancient, many based upon reflections on their experience and nature - and we moderns with presupposed 'superior' ideologies and techniques would love to do our nice little 'incantations' and academic 'rituals' donned in full media theatrics, and with a magic eraser wipe all the 'evil' religious 'superstitions' away and pretend that the pasteurization and homogenization of culture has launched us into some secular 'enlightenment' and prepare us for a brave new world. A world where you never have any doubts about that 'rascally' religious 'stuff', and you needn't worry about that nagging suspicion that our 'just so' scientific orthodoxy that we place such 'faith' in, is wrong, horribly so. Better hope your 'superstitions' are true, because if there is more to the world than your tidy little alibis can allow, your little house of cards may come tumbling down, and 'with a great crash', and all learn the hard way there is a darkness in the world and our hearts we desperately wanted to ignore and pretend is not portentous and apocalyptic. And that these 'ancient' beliefs we chide were more honest than we.
Maybe one day far into the future, if the world survives, humanity will reflect back on this time in total disbelief that this generation in its boasts of enligthenment and science were perhaps the most superstitious of all. And wrong.
I didn’t anticipate such humor from an analytic philosopher, I literally laughed out laughed several points
The questioners with their obnoxious, dry, smart aleck-y attitudes despite them, for the most part, not really understanding what he was saying, is annoying.
Always great to listen to.
the students are not up to par, they are misunderstand what he is saying, he should have this talk at a university of a higher caliber
They are profoundly retarded.
I don’t think anyone understands his argument. I’ve heard it a few times and still struggle with it. Doesn’t pay off to be rude/dismissive when you don’t even understand, just makes you look like an idiot
He's so intelligent and simple. Brilliant Platinga.
I admire Plantinga for being one of the best on his side of the line-- I read his book "Where the conflict really lies" and it definitely stretched my mind out. I really have tried to give him as much time as I could to actually make a truly persuasive argument against naturalism, hours and hours of reading his stuff, but my patience has run out.
What a ridiculous argument. Which is more beneficial to survival, reliable or unreliable cognitive faculties? Get a grip, people.
Unreliable
@@jasonsimms8251 Please support your asinine answer.
@@AsixA6 no
@@jasonsimms8251 👌
"But if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred"
-Maarten Boudry
This is a fact not an opinion. It's a reason why Plantinga's outdated medieval scholastic reasoning, a prime example being his EAAN, has had little impact within analytic philosophy (not to mention it's been refuted).
Sorry buddy, it is not a 'fact'. You saying it is a 'fact' won't convince anyone.
Where is Alvin Plantinga wrong?
@@martam4142 So dropping evidence in favor of mere logical possibility is not lowering the bar? Why not? Where's your argument?
Many commenters here seem to think because they share the outermost superfice of Plantinga’s worldview, that they are in a position to perfectly approve of his argument, as well as ruefully mock the untrained questions from students in the audience. And no, Plantinga’s argument is not even “pretty much the same” as the Argument from Reason (against naturalism) many will know from C.S. Lewis, who first popularized and then abandoned it after facing its refutation by fellow Christian philosopher GEM Anscombe. If someone is familiar with Anscombe’s analysis they will know why Plantinga’s argument is not even one against naturalism per se. In summary it’s not just some apologist’s syllogism to be delivered as a decisive bon mot, but the complex product of a sprawling epistemological project which Plantinga has laid out in a number of books and papers, with many fellow theists voicing reservation on his conclusions. And granted, many interested in that work also seem to be watching this video.
very great exposition. prof. plantinga has proven his true worth as a great philosopher of religion. it will take a long time for another to take his place
I agree, Pigliucci refuted this argument and pointed out that it doesn't follow from the fact that if our mental faculties aren't reliable then naturalism is false (Plantinga didn't aim it towards methodological naturalism so his argument is a dud).
Pigliucci did not refute the EEAN.
I doubt no one ever will.
@@martam4142 It's been refuted more than once and the general consensus among philosophers is that it's failed to do what it sets out for, refuting metaphysical naturalism but, regardless, it left methodological naturalism untouched so it's pretty much useless. Pigliucci squarely refuted it by pointing out the formal fallacy Plantinga committed, a non- sequitur because it simply doesn't follow from dubious mental faculties that naturalism is false. You didn't prove your case that Pigliucci didn't refute it. Sorry.
This argument sounds really weird to me. Basically it seems to be saying:
1. If X is true, then a person who believes in X must admit to the possibility of holding false beliefs.
2. We already established that this hypothetical takes place in a universe where X is true.
3. Therefore, even though the person has the ability to hold false beliefs, their belief in X is true anyway.
This argument simply sets X=naturalistic evolution.
Steven Kazoroski Not quite. If a person believes X (naturalism + evolution) is true, then that person must admit that they can not know if X is true. Understand? The belief has an inherent logical self-defeater. A belief in the truth of X necessarily demands that a belief in the truth of X is unreliable, so how can it be rational to believe in the truth of X in the first place?
This isn't exactly analogous, but it might help to illustrate Plantinga's argument somewhat: It's similar to holding a belief that you're absolutely wrong about absolutely everything. That belief is logically self-defeating, right? Because, if you believe you're absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, you must also believe that you're wrong about being wrong about absolutely everything. And, if you're wrong about being wrong about absolutely everything, then there must be something you're not wrong about, and your original belief is unfounded. So, the belief "I'm wrong about absolutely everything" is logically self-defeating right out of the gate.
Plantinga's argument is similar -- If you believe that evolution and naturalism is true, then you must believe that everything you believe could be the result of nothing more than your evolutionary programming forcing you into that belief -- whether or not it has any basis in reality. So, logically, if you believe that naturalism and evolution are both true, you must also believe that every belief you hold, as far as you're able to reasonably determine, has no better than a 50/50 chance of being true. But, that includes your belief about naturalism and evolution. So, logically, if you believe naturalism and evolution are true, you must also believe that you have no idea whether or not naturalism and evolution are true. And, if you have no idea whether or not naturalism and evolution are true, it's irrational to believe that naturalism and evolution are true.
ReallyWeirdThings.Com Why can't this person believe they are wrong about everything except for the belief that they are wrong about everything? This argument sounds like it says that naturalism and evolution being true is a prerequisite for the ability to form false beliefs. I believe people have the capacity to have false beliefs, therefore it's OK for me to believe evolution and naturalism.
Steven Kazoroski A person certainly can believe that the only correct belief they hold is that all other beliefs they hold are false. There's no logical problem with that. But, they can't hold the belief that ALL beliefs they hold, without exception, are false. It's a logically self-defeating belief. Because, of course, If ALL beliefs you hold are actually false, and one of the beliefs you hold is that ALL beliefs you hold are false, then that belief isn't false. Plantinga's argument asserts that, in a similar way, holding a belief that N (naturalism) and E (evolution) are both true necessarily gives rise to a similar self-defeater.
And, no, the argument is, in no way, suggesting that N+E being true is a prerequisite for the ability to form false beliefs. It merely says that if you do hold N+E to be true, then you must logically accept that the reliability of ANY belief you hold is probably either very low, or entirely inscrutable -- and, of course, this includes your belief that N+E is true. So, if you hold the belief that N+E is true you must also hold the belief that your belief that N+E is true is very low, or entirely inscrutable. And, of course, it's not rational to hold a belief as being true if you accept that the reliability of it being true is very low.
And, yes, EVERYBODY has the capacity to have false beliefs. There's absolutely no arguing that. But, that's not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that if I don't accept that both N+E is true -- that is to say, if I reject either N or E, or both -- I must accept a *possibility* that any belief I hold to be true may, in fact, be false. But, if I accept N+E as being true, then I'm logically forced to accept that I can not reasonably determine with any respectable degree of reliability whether ANY belief I hold to be true is actually true or not. And, since one of the beliefs I hold is that N+E is true, that holds true for that belief as well. And, it's irrational to believe something for which I accept that I am unable to reliably determine the truth of.
Get it? If I, say, reject N as being true, then I'm free to say that I might be wrong but I don't think I am, and remain rational. I'm free to think that I'm *most probably* correct in my belief, and remain rational. If, on the other hand, I accept N+E as being true, I can't say that. I'm forced by the logical argument to instead say that, since I believe N+E to be true, I therefore have no reasonable idea whether I'm wrong or not regarding ANY belief I hold. And, if I have no idea regarding the truth of any belief I hold, N+E being true is one of the beliefs I hold so, therefore, I have no idea whether or not N+E is true. And, it's irrational to hold a belief as being true if you accept that you have no reasonable idea whether it's true or not.
ReallyWeirdThings.Com That sounds like a pretty good explanation and I understand the arguement a lot better now. The only thing I have left to say is that naturalists and evolutionists tend to be less concerned about beliefs and more interested in actually knowing what is and isn't true.
@@ReallyWeirdThingsCom The problem is that Plantinga is wrong that evolution would not select for reliable (truth finding) cognitive faculties. It would, because an accurate mapping of one's physical environment has great survival advantage to one who possess it. Of course, this only a very limited range of concrete knowledge and we might expect that the reliability of our faculties would fall off precipitously as we approach answering a question as abstract as "What is the nature of reality." However, over millennia of human social progress we have developed tools for compensating for deficiencies in our biologically evolved mental "hardware." These "software" so to speak are such things as logic, mathematics and science. So, yes, we should be highly skeptical of an uneducated savage's musings on such matters, but we needn't be nearly as skeptical about nor is there anything self-defeating in accepting the near consensus worldview of the modern intellectual community. Plantinga's arguments completely ignore much of this nuance. They are oversimplified and lame.
Wise man, a naturalist in his creation towards purpose.
Because Dawkins tells to man, what the man's heart wanna hear, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9).
Do anyone have the booklet notes he is refering to?
It's a fact, not an opinion, that Plantinga's argument was long ago refuted, Sober's refutation is from 1997.
Sober did not "refute" anything. He simply offered his "objections".
The EAAN is alive (and well alive).
@@martam4142 Substantiate yourself. Provide evidence for what you assert and cite Sober's article. Thank you.
@@undefeateddebater9438 Burden of proof is on you, child.
@@VACatholic It's on anyone who makes unsubstantiated claims (like you just did), I provided one of the philosophers who have refuted Plantinga just in case you're interested in fact checking me.
@@undefeateddebater9438 Your appeal to authority is duly noted and rejected as stupid. Do you have any other arguments?
While this lacked and great rhetoric or brilliant sound bytes, but the logic was strong-which is, of course, far more significant.
Sorry, strong ‘logic’ would not pretend that unreliable cognitive faculties are more beneficial to survival than reliable cognitive faculties.
@@asix9178 nice emotional appeal you got there; but of course it would, which is why we have a whole cognitive science studying bias, which is why many scientific hypotheses are useful in their domain but false, which is why *according to atheists* religious belief is false but helped us survive.
@@asix9178 genuine question - why not? Unless by reliability you mean useful for survival? But what he meant by reliability was in terms of producing beliefs that are true.
I must be missing something. I find it plausible that on naturalistic evolution our cognitive faculties are unreliable. But I am not sure why this should motivate a person to abandon naturalism. If the argument is simply that we should prefer a worldview in which our cognitive faculties are reliable, it seems like a case of wishful thinking. If it is indeed the case that our cognitive faculties are unreliable then at best we have a case for agnosticism between naturalism and theism. How does this argument actually lead to theism?
that's exactly the argument, and that's why it provides a universal defeater for all one's beliefs, and this defeater cannot be defeated. You're objection isn't very sound, if you want to see some better objections see the book "Naturalism Defeated?"
The most responses to Plantinga in the philosophical literature say that Plantinga is wrong to think that our cognitive faculties would be unreliable on Naturalism and Evolution. Rather, they say, there is reason to think that our faculties would be reliable, even with regard to non-empirical topics or topics irrelevant to our survival. The problem with this response is that, if it is right, PLANTINGA WINS. Since humankind overwhelmingly believes in non-natural forces--God, spirits, dualism about the human mind, ghosts, gods, karma?, progress--the reliability of our cognitive faculties would, on its own, undermine Naturalism. EITHER WAY, Naturalism is in trouble here.
In the Q & A here, it seems that several questioners confuse the reliability of cognitive faculties to make true beliefs with the reliability of cognitive faculties to prompt survival-conducive behavior. "R" is the first.
False. Nobody is claiming all beliefs under E&N would be true. Also, the same problem exists for theists. If our faculties are supposedly reliable thanks to an invisible magician, why are there so many different worldviews? Why doesn’t every god believer believe in the same deity?
I think it's a rule of internet invective that someone who uses the name Thomas Paine is an idiot.
Well, I must be a glaring exception to the rule then, because I test in the upper percentile for verbally reasoning ability. I think I'll trust my GRE exam results over the opinion of some internet rando. Now, instead of hurling your own invective at me, what was idiotic about anything I posted?
"If you know anything about evolution, the 'evolutionary argument against naturalism' is a nonstarter"
-Jerry Coyne
OK...You just provided an assertion, with no argument behind it. Who cares about Coyne’s conclusion by itself? You need to tell us why every such argument is a nonstarter. Otherwise, it’s just an appeal to authority argument, which is not a reasoned argument at all.
@@blindlemon9 In another thread somebody quoted Coyne mistakenly thinking it somehow supported their defense of Plantinga. I provide the quote here to show he's no fan. He's a biologist who has pointed out some of Plantinga's errors regarding evolution. Also, appeals to authority are not always fallacious.
@@blindlemon9 Yup, appeals to authority is fallacious when the authority is not an expert in the field. If the topic is molecular biology, then appealing to a molecular biologist is not fallacious; appealing to a marine engineer is fallacious.
@@championdebater7088 Coyne needs to realize Darwinian Evolutionism is a dead theory
@@aqilshamil9633 It's one of the greatest scientific theories ever.
If to be best apt to survive, would unreasonably unreliable cognitive perceptual faculties be selected?
It seems that reasonably reliable faculties would be evolutionarily selected for on naturalism.
Eyes which incorrectly perceive distance relative to position would fail to detect the coming cliff’s edge and leave the life form tumbling to extinction.
It does not seem contradictory to posit that evolution would produce creatures who can reasonably rely on their faculties.
Even stated, how could we trust our faculties to distinguish between true and false supernatural god beliefs?
Unless I’m missing something, in at least some way, Plantinga’s contention either doesn’t hold water or destroys theistic belief along with everything else.
These arguments might seem like most people will just understand them right away but the complexity of them actually takes a deeper analysis.. even if you think that they are wrong. To put it in a different way, if it was analysis of a chess game, you would have to scan each move with stockfish for 5 minutes.
Which do you think is more beneficial to survival, reliable or unreliable cognitive faculties?
Checkmate
@@asix9178 reliable cognitive faculties are much more beneficial.. in this way, you should probably analyze and be cognizant of your own confirmation biases.
I feel the same way I thought the first time I heard the argument, that I had a pretty good understanding of it, but the more and more I started to learn about, the more and more I realize just how little I actually knew about it before.
@@asix9178 he’s addressed this before.
@@radmcbad1576 I find it hilarious that he’s even using this as an objection plantinga has been addressing this objection for decades at this point ever since he developed the argument to begin with, because he anticipated this subject.
Plantinga is amazingly brilliant - a formidable champion of reason
Yes, he is amazing.
You two have an extremely low bar if you think Plantinga is a ‘champion’. He’s a loser for positing this idiotic EAAN.
- a formidable champion of sophistry
@@anteodedi8937 you should be capable of such sophistry
His rigorous "philo-lingo" doesn't fare very well with the MTV generation
Plantinga's thesis is borne out when you travel and examine 3rd world cultures. I've been to 40+ countries across 4 continents, and I can tell you from 1st hand experience that many cultures hold false ideas as true, and those false ideas just so happen to extend life. ..but not for long. That's why life expectancy in many of these cultures is 53-55, whereas 1st world cultures enjoy life expectancy 30 years longer.
I could give dozens of examples, everything from sanitation to "medical" advice.
(I just got back from the Congo)
You can't equate the reactive awareness of lower animals with the predictive intellect of human beings. It is arbitrary and false to say that frog thoughts are physiologically identical to human thoughts. It is wrong to compare an amphibian act of survival to a truth evaluation.
You can just as easily say that the integrity of truth recognition is absolutely essential for an animal that uniquely depends on the accurate evaluation and manipulation of the real world in order to survive. The evidence of separation from "lower" brain function being that human animals no longer are confined to an econiche by physical traits or behavior which is dependent on the immediate environment.
The fact that we can exist universally in any environment/econiche because we have discovered the "truths" about each environment proves that human beings have transcended simple physical reaction to the real world.
You can argue that the emergent mind of man is the very creation of "true beliefs." And the ability to distinguish a specious concept from a reasonable concept is, in fact, a survival skill which can be selected for in human evolution.
+cruelsuit1
"You can't equate the reactive awareness of lower animals with the predictive intellect of human beings."
The idea that one species(humans) is unlike all the others is as undarwinian as you can get
Wayne Ekeh
Different species have widely varying sensory traits and experiences. One species IS unlike all the others in its intellect. That's not "undarwinian" to recognize a unique trait of a species.
cruelsuit1 sorry the quote is
""The idea that one species of organism is, unlike all the others, oriented not just toward its own increated prosperity but toward Truth, is as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human has a moral compass
+Wayne Ekeh Are you implying that because all organisms are ultimately selfish that humans are incapable of logic or scientific inquiry? Are you saying that Einstein's theories are intellectually equivalent to Kermit catching flies on his tongue?
cruelsuit1 "Are you implying that because all organisms are ultimately selfish that humans are incapable of logic or scientific inquiry? Are you saying that Einstein's theories are intellectually equivalent to Kermit catching flies on his tongue?"
Im not
Naturalism is
That second boy questioner is so dense he didn't get that Plantinga answered his question, he just kept posing it with his false characterization of Plantinga's argument.
I don't get why Plantinga has fanbois, this just isn't a good argument. Nor is the MOA.
Yeah i asked him about that, He said something about how that's not necessarily true or whatever. Idk but i remember putting constant questioning on him about that he answered the questions well and they were well reasoned. It was a few years ago so i cannot necessarily cite it back to you since it was an informal face to face thing
So, to me, it appears that in this hypotetical evolutionary scenario, it would be survival enhancing to have more logical brain than others, despite the exact belief that the logical brain holds at the specific moment.
I don't think the questioners understood the talk.
Poor Dr. Plantinga.
"Plantinga continues to conveniently revise the EAAN in response to his critics"
-Troy Cross
Reed College
Department of Philosophy
If it's such a solid argument why keep revising it? Obviously, it keeps getting refuted so Plantinga keeps changing it.
And again, nothing of substance. The EEAN stands, show me where Plantinga is wrong and I'll drop it.
Meanwhile:
Opinions are NOT arguments.
Losers have opinions, NOT arguments.
@@martam4142 Cross gave no opinion, it's a fact Plantinga has continually revised his argument do to refutations.
@@championdebater7088 Again, statements with no proof = nothing.
Show us what you have.
We are waiting.
@@martam4142 The proof it's a fact Plantinga has revised his argument. Do you have proof to the contrary? Please present it.
@@championdebater7088 what's wrong with revising an argument if a flaw is pointed out?
because he is a christian apologist, and he tells the truth
" EAAN is not a suitable method. In general, EAAN is a kind of arguments through artificial paradox"
- Chaohui Zhuang
What does this argument from authority matter at all?
@@VACatholic What argument? Is English your primary language? I've been reading some of your comments and you don't seem to comprehend what you're replying to. Please inform yourself accordingly.
@@championdebater7088 You're a bot.
@@VACatholic That's not an argument. Please inform yourself accordingly.
@@championdebater7088 that's not an argument. Please inform yourself accordingly.
His goal was to refute metaphysical naturalism and not to prove evolution with it is a "problem", he's never demonstrated that and NO experiments have ever been performed to confirm it. He simply ASSUMED it so his argument fails.
"Experiments" to debunk a phylosophical argument?
You are so ignorant, ridiculous and pathetic.
You are a lab coat worshipper, a fool blinded by scientism.
And now, your argument is?
@@martam4142 Yes, since *philosophy is speculative, you're not knoweldgeable enough to urge your point.
@@realitychecker1298 Hahaha.
@@martam4142 Confirmed.
@@realitychecker1298 Confirmed that you believe in fairies.
Now, please, address the argument.
Unless you have nothing.
Ouch! You have nothing :)
It seems to mean that Plantinga presents a view of naturalism that is too simple. Maybe one of you can help me out here, because I was excited to see another respected philosopher positing this view; mainly because I don't think I fully grasped this view when I saw it for the first time. In Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos, he mentions something like this view, but I couldn't really make any sense of it without his addition that our intelligibility of the universe is hugely coincident, given that "evolution has no ability to guide our reasoning to have complete general validity rather than mere local utility." But that doesn't seem like as strong as an argument as Plantinga is making; and also doesn't have much bite (in my mind), as truths from local utility could conceivably be brought to have impact on our understanding and creation of physics.
Plantinga's naturalism doesn't seem like a system of belief to me, but just a refutation of God, adding nothing but chaos in it's place. Does Plantinga's argument also refute E & N + scientific realism; the idea that there is an objective world, that our senses can interact with in some way, and that one of science's aims is to gather true representations of this world from our senses? Maybe Plantinga would say that scientific realism is just another belief that is really only guided by faith, with no real backing, and is also defeated? We can diagram how the visual system works. Electromagnetic waves hit the retina, a signal cascade starts within the affected cells, then send their respective effects eventually all the way to the occipital lobe. I'm only interested in a non-epiphenominal theory of mind/brain that gives the mind a causal role and retains free-will. Plantinga might say that when we add meaning to what those electromagnetic waves were, and believe that it is representative of what is in an objective world, then we are making our system theory-laden on prior belief that is still unfounded.
Perhaps I'm only proving Plantinga's point, and maybe that's helpful to some of you. My real problem is that it makes more sense for me to say that at least our perceptual experiences are usually reliable, because when they (or their rudimentary beginnings) appeared by happenstance of genetic mutation they conferred a new ability to us. First, the ability to sense light, then the ability to discriminate boundaries, eventually to see a tiger hiding behind a bush. It might be important that the first ancestor that perceived light probably had no conscious experience. Plantinga aims at all the unsolved mind/body problems, and say that because we continue with science despite not knowing for sure that other minds exist or that our senses interact with an object, real world, then our theories under that science can be overturned. He seems to say that it is conceivable that our evolutionary abilities are wrong, so they must be wrong. To me it seems more likely that our abilities are right, because having a true discriminatory faculty that could pick our a tiger behind a bush would be of local utility; if our mind has causal powers. Is Plantinga's argument just of conceivability? Does he go into more detail in his latest book about scientific realism or a more system-wide naturalistic belief?
This argument has been refuted several times by professional philosophers.
This is a 7 year old video. And I'm pretty sure veritas forum posts videos way older than that sometimes.
And he is a professional philosopher. He probably knows counter arguments to his stuff very well.
@@spitfiremase Yes he knows. There is this book: "Naturalism Defeated"?
"In this, the first book to address the ongoing debate, Plantinga presents his influential thesis and responds to critiques by distinguished philosophers from a variety of subfields. Plantinga's argument is aimed at metaphysical naturalism or roughly the view that no supernatural beings exist".
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.amazon.es/Naturalism-Defeated-Plantingas-Evolutionary-Argument/dp/0801487633&ved=2ahUKEwi4l-Cu4O_nAhVGrxoKHY0VC9UQFjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0fbZhrg9fvwTDPszhugaBP&cshid=1582738740076
@@spitfiremase He hasn't made many counter arguments only revisions of which the latest was in 2011. That was refuted by Stephen Law and Plantinga has not responded.
This argument has been *responded to* several times by professional philosophers. It’s (at best) a matter of debate whether or not it has been “refuted”.
But thanks for weighing in, Snake.
I would have liked to ask him about Aristotle and the skeptic.
It really bothers me that he separating action from belief. If you're choosing to act on a desire, and that desire is fulfilled, then I think its fair to say that your "belief" is true according to practical knowledge or prudence.
Aristotle says in the ethics that it is the mark of a wise man to reach for the degree of certainty the subject matter will allow; isn't expecting absolute certainty devoid of prudence over reaching?
Do people take this guy seriously?!
The majority of analytic philosophers disagree with him about the EAAN.
is Plantinga seriously using this argument anymore?
Plantinga thinks he is so clever with his Paul and the Tiger analogies, when in fact they are such silly oversimplifications that a child ought to be able to see through them. Sure, we can imagine a person with cognitive faculties so faulty that they thought Tigers were pussy cats and the best way to pet them was to run away, and they might survive in that situation, but I guarantee, in the next or next situation, some time soon, those faulty faculties are going to fail him.
Of course, it does make sense to think that our faculties on Naturalism would become unreliable as we move away from the kind of mundane information gathering and processing that is needed for survival. And that in fact is what we see, which is what we should expect on naturalism, but not super naturalism. Heck, Plantinga himself thinks we can somehow get transcendent knowledge from some divine inner sense. Where is the evidence for that?
Plantinga's argument does also not take into account a very important fact, and that is human knowledge is not the random musings of moronic savages it is the cumulative work of thousands of years of the endeavor of some of the greatest minds the world has known. Once the printing press was invented learning could be recorded and dispersed widely. At some point we developed the scientific, which is a method of correcting for some of the distortions that our evolved cognitive faculties do have. One of the pillars of the method is naturalism, admittedly this is methodological naturalism not metaphysical naturalism, but the latter is the preferred system of most of the best educated people in the world today.
Sorry, I don't find Plantinga's EAAN adds anything to my doubts about the superiority of naturalism to supernaturalism.
I think you bring up a fairly decent point. I REALLY would have liked to have been able to ask him if his position is that "blind" evolution necessitates that practical knowledge (as opposed to theoretical wisdom when he alludes to Descartes) is unreliable too.
It seems that he admits practical knowledge is reliable in "blind" evolution when he agrees that beliefs can change from environment to environment. So I'm left wondering if he thinks there is no connection between prudence and wisdom.
10 years late, lol. But no. He no where in this video admitted that any knowledge is reliable given blind evolution and naturalism, including practical knowledge. For example, his Tiger scenario where paul runs from the tiger. He gives several examples of beliefs that could cause precisely the same behavior of evading the tiger despite most of them being false (and contradictory to each other). Yes he of course admits that beliefs can change from environment to environment. All that is saying is that the environment is in some way correlated, or even can cause beliefs. But the environment causing beliefs certainly doesnt mean that those beliefs are true, for even in the case of paul thinking the tiger is the starting signal for a 1500 meter race for fun, the tiger is still very much the thing that causes him to run, despite the belief of the tiger being a starting signal in a race being clearly false.
@@Raiddd__ In his tiger example, the person believing the truth is definitely going to survive. Every scenario you could think of, the person believing the truth is going to survive. Not so with the people holding false beliefs. ‘Truth’ is beneficial to survival.
Put the. Person that ran from the tiger with the expectation of heading toward the tiger to pet it, in a different scenario and they die. Wanna eat that food up ahead, turn the other way and run. Wanna procreate? Run the other way. The only person surviving the tiger, eating and getting laid is the person believing the truth.
This, to me, is philosophy in its most abstract form. Although it seems to make some good points, in my view, it remains too abstract and can certainly be felt in the Q & A where, according to my view, no good responses are formulated.
This argument doesn't make any sense. First of all, if our faculties were made by the gods you still don't know if your faculties are reliable (how would you know? you have to use your faculties). Moreover, the gods themselves are subject to this same limitation - they can't get outside of their own faculties to verify their own beliefs as true. (see: Munchhausen Trilemma). Second of all, Plantinga has to show that our beliefs are, in fact, true, for his argument to start even being considered. Not only does he not do this (it's actually impossible; again, see Munchhausen Trilemma), but we in fact know that our faculties consistently do NOT produce true beliefs - we can only point to examples of things we seem to know are false, but nothing that we can say is absolutely true. We may postulate axioms but that doesn't mean they are true. Third, he says that if naturalism is the assumed position, one should reject it *because* it would lead to agnosticism about knowing whether or not one's beliefs are "really" true. Um, what? Why should we reject the position just because it would lead to agnosticism? If the man who has the false beliefs about the tiger can't tell his beliefs are false it has no relevance to his life as long as he keeps living and he will indeed go on forever with his false convictions, unable to perceive their falsehood. If he were an agnostic about his tiger-oriented beliefs that would, in fact, be the right position to hold. Fourth, evolution is consistent with our observed reality. Our faculties are, in fact, not producers of absolute reality, but instead produce "good enough" models that approximate reality. Evolution can explain this as it is a gradual process that reforms genes over time. Fifth, the fact that our faculties are obvious producers of approximately-accurate models, with known deficiencies in accuracy, is not consistent with his "traditionalist theist" position as he himself describes it (why would the gods give us inaccurate faculties?). Sixth, he equivocates on "true" vs. "reliable", and this makes all the difference. Reliability isn't a problem for evolution, but truth might be, and he loses on both these points, because (a) evolution can produce reliable perceptions, and (b) the fact that our faculties are known to produce false perceptions means he has no right to say we "have true beliefs" - that's nothing more, indeed, than mere wish fulfillment. Seventh, you can't use your mental faculties to create a hypothetical scenario in which your mental faculties wouldn't be reliable unless they have external support (i.e. "the gods") because the very ability to conjure the scenario presupposes your faculties are correct *a priori* - not because of the external support. Yes, you might be able to conceive a scenario in which beings exist in which *their* mental faculties are only reliable because their structure was generated by the gods, but you can't do this with respect to your own faculties because, again, they are presupposed to be reliable the moment you use them - the idea of external support for them is superfluous.
The argument is just a mess on so many levels. It's basically just a petulant and unjustified insistence that humans, despite having demonstrably faulty faculties, have beliefs that are absolutely true, and saying that we need gods for this insistence to make sense, despite the fact that it doesn't solve the problem in the first place, and the problem is, in fact, unsolvable according to logic itself.
If Faculties is made by an All-knowing being that can create truth bearing rational faculties then how is that not a good explanation? God is someone who can intend to create and order things for specific purposes but i dont see how nature can do that since it has no intention to produce anything. You can use your faculties to come up with a good theoretical justification for why your faculties are trustworthy. Its not a contradiction. Naturalism on the other hand can not justify why we have faculties to know the truth if its irrelevant to survival and reproduction? Why do we have free will as well? Since when is free will beneficial to survival? Or sexual reproduction instead of asexual reproduction? It doesn't make any sense to believe in evolution. Also God has no rational faculties, he is not the same as us. He doesnt have a mind governed by laws of logic or anything like that. He is all knowing by his very essence and not distinct from his essence. He doesnt need rational Faculties, because God doesnt need it to seek the truth rather he already knows everything. You should rather look at what God really is. God in abrahmic faiths is someone who is one, not in number but rather that there can not ever be imagined a partner next to him, he is unlimited which means there is no beginning or end in any of his attributes, there is no increase or decrease with him, he does not change nor is he contained by any place. He is eternally himself, with no parts or divisions within him, he is simple and his attributes of his essence are all one with no distinction.
@@aybb1965
1. If you define God as omniscient, then God might be omniscient, however he could never *know* he was omniscient. God could never know if his own faculties are reliable and truthful (see: Munchhausen Trilemma). God would be stuck in the same boat we are: you have no way to get "outside" your own faculties to confirm the ultimate validity of your own faculties. (Therefore, if God gives us what he thinks of as "truth-granting faculties", we still couldn't know, for sure, if they really show truth. You're always stuck with "good enough").
Explain to me how God could know he is omniscient. He might BE omniscient, but how could he KNOW he is omniscient?
2. Naturalism doesn't have to show the validity of our faculties because they must be taken as valid enough *a priori* to begin the reasoning process. You can't use your faculties to a priori infer that your faculties must have been designed by a truth-generating God, as Plantinga is doing, because you could never know if your faculties were generating truth or not in the first place a priori. If your faculties were designed by God or by evolution to generate falsehoods you think are true, you wouldn't know it. If your faculties were designed by God or by evolution to generate truth that you thought was true, you also wouldn't know it.
3. There is a major problem here with the definition of "Truth" - it needs to be rigorously defined before using it in this way - but we can ignore that for now. Truth may be relevant to survival and reproduction, or it may not. For a bacterium, that has no nervous system, "truth" is irrelevant. For a human being, "truth" may be relevant to cognitive processes that may enhance survival and reproduction, or it may not. It's easy to conceive of a singular scenario where truth is irrelevant to reproductive outcome as opposed to a false delusion (such as the example of a large cat). It's not so easy, however, to see how a cognitive faculty system could consistently generate false beliefs and still retain survival value. Evolution is a gradual process and it's very easy to conceive of a gradual and increasing set of faculties evolving slowly over time that continues to generate "better approximations" of reality.
Incidentally, this is more consistent with our picture of reality. For instance, one of our faculties - our memory (memory is an example Plantinga gives elsewhere) - is indeed ONLY an "approximation" of what happened in the past. It is "reliable", but only to a certain degree. Evolution can explain that. It's much harder to see, actually, on theism, just exactly why God would design us with a faulty memory.
4. Free will beneficial to survival? I need you to define free will first.
5. Sexual reproduction is a highly beneficial adaptation to survival. It is not necessary for life, but it is beneficial. Sexual reproduction creates novel genotypes that increase genetic diversity. The fact that it evolved isn't all that surprising, especially considering bacteria exchange DNA themselves - kind of (though not exactly) like humans do - using sex pili.
6. Plantinga himself accepts evolution. Plantinga himself would disagree with you about not accepting evolution. Plantinga himself merely says that there is no proof evolution wasn't guided.
7. God doesn't have a mind governed by laws or logic? Does this mean you think God could violate the laws of logic?
8. If God is unchanging, that means he couldn't get angry. To "get angry" means there is a moment when you're not angry, then you "get angry". Emotions necessitate change. If God is unchanging, then he could not design things. "Design" means you start at a point where you have not created something, then you go through a series of mental calculations and arrangements until you have a product that wasn't there before.
@@superdog797 If omniscience is taken to mean knowing everything then an omniscient God would know that they were omniscient
@@phillipbrandel7932 That is false even if your premise definition is true. An omniscient being could never know if they know everything there is to know, even if they do know everything, because you cannot get outside of your own knowledge to verify it. (See: Munchhausen Trilemma).
@@superdog797 Münchhausen trilemma is a problem of demonstrating that knowledge has in fact been ascertained by a human being who is de facto ignorant of all propositions they have not proven to be true. If a human claims to know proposition X is true, as they do not by nature possess knowledge of the truth of any proposition, it is necessary for them to answer for how they went from a state of ignorance to a state of knowing that X is true. The only justification they can give for their knowledge of X is their knowledge of another proposition Y plus some rule of inference. The question can then be asked of their knowledge of Y etc. until one of the horns of the trilemma is reached. In the case of an omniscient God there is no need for him to prove or to demonstrate to himself the truth of any proposition because he already possesses knowledge of the truth values of all propositions by definition. If you think the Münchhausen Trilemma still poses some problem for an omniscient God's knowledge of his own omniscience, go ahead and apply it to one of the two proofs:
Direct proof that God knows that he is omniscient:
P1. God is omniscient. (assumed)
P2. If God is omniscient, and if X is a true proposition, then God knows that X is a true proposition. (definition of omniscience)
P3. If X is a true proposition, then God knows that X is a true proposition. (implication; P2, P1)
P4. "God is omniscient" is a true proposition (given in P1)
C. Therefore God knows that "God is omniscient" is a true proposition. (implication; P3, P4)
Proof by contradiction:
"God might be omniscient, however he could never know he was omniscient"
P1. God is omniscient and he does not know that "God is omniscient" is a true proposition. (your position; assumed in order to derive a contradiction)
P2. If God is omniscient, and if X is a true proposition, then God knows that X is a true proposition. (definition of omniscience)
P3. If X is a true proposition, then God knows that X is a true proposition. (implication; P2, P1)
P4. "God is omniscient" is a true proposition (Given in P1)
C1. God knows that "God is omniscient" is a true proposition (implication, P2, P3)
C2. God does not know that "God is omniscient" is a true proposition (given in P1).
C3. God both knows and does not know that "God is omniscient." Therefore P1 must be false by contradiction.
Take for instance his argument that if our minds are evolved we have no reason to trust our reasoning and understanding of the world. I have seen Plantinga put forward this argument on several occasions and strut it around like it's a 18 hand horse on the last day of market.
It seems to me as an atheist that Plantinga is actually right in his premises but that he neglects the final reality check before he draws his conclusion. We humans with our naturally evolved brains are in fact wrong about a great many things and only through the most rigorous testing can we discover what actually is true - and even then certain pig-headed people will still in spite of the evidence against their position go on to claim that their intuition about the universe is the right one - take the evolution debate for instance. So to me his argument is actually a much better argument against theism and for naturalism than for the conclusion he draws. If his proposition is that our brains would be prone to faulty reasoning and drawing fallacious conclusions is the watermark of it being naturalistically evolved he should stop and smell what he is shoveling for just a second. Because isn't that EXACTLY the world we actually live in right now?
Plantinga actually admitted in his presentation that when we get to the edge of our understanding of the universe our perception and beliefs about the universe are in fact NOT reliable. And this is certainly true - but why in his worldview is this so? Shouldn't the world we would expect to see in his worldview that every single aspect of our understanding of the world be correct?
So I guess my question is - isn't it the case that our perception of how things actually work is in fact severely and irredeemably flawed and only with the greatest of effort can we learn to master things like advanced mathematics, quantum physics, the theory of relativity, and so on?
Isn't it the case that again and again have our intuition of how the world actually is been hopelessly and completely wrong and that we for instance have spent thousands of years believing that the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe, or that time was not relative?
The insight that matter is mostly empty space, that simultaneity is a fiction, and that the universe is not fine tuned wrecks havoc on our common sense and still eludes even highly intelligent people to this day - not least of these Plantinga in the case of the last example.
And we needn't even go to the edge of our understanding of the universe either - we make irrational conclusions and choices every single day. Why is it for instance that studies have shown that if a person is willing to help a little girl in Africa with 15$ to pay for her school and likewise he would be willing to donate 15$ to a boy in the same situation, that he on average would only give 10$ to help them both when asked to help them both en bloc? And if asked to help 100.000 children in Africa to go to school he would donate as little as 5$? Clearly evolution hasn't equipped us to make rational decisions under those particular circumstances.
Hell - if our brains evolved naturalistically we might even find that millions of people believed in all sorts of silly religions that did not have the slightest shred of evidence going for them. Now wouldn't that be something.
Perhaps if naturalism was true we might even find a philosopher who was willing to put forward the argument that if our brains were evolved we might reach wrong conclusions about how the universe worked and then go on to use this as an argument that our minds were designed. Oh what hubris that would be...
... I rest my case.
itsjustameme That's a rather robust criticism of something other than Plantinga's argument. Perhaps you should devote a little more time and attention in trying to understand what, exactly, Plantinga's argument actually is? Because what you've written here doesn't address it at all.
It appears that you're under the mistaken impression that Plantinga is saying that if the human brain arose through the processes of purely naturalistic evolution, it can be wrong about things. And, if it arose from design, it can't. That's most certainly NOT what he's saying.
Plantinga's argument, in a nutshell, is that if one accepts naturalism and evolution as both being true, then one must also accept the presence of a logical defeater for that belief. Whereas, if you don't believe one, or the other, or both, to be true, then such a defeater is not necessary. I.e. - If you believe naturalism and evolution to be true, then you must accept that your very belief in those things (indeed, your belief in ANYTHING) might only be the product of naturalistic, evolutionary systems, and not, in any way, based on any sort of objective truth. And, you would have no way of reliably calculating any odds of probability for your belief -- because EVERYTHING you could use to calculate those odds are subject to the same defeater. So, the BEST you can reasonably do, when formulating any belief, if you hold naturalism and evolution to be true, is to say that any belief you hold has a 50/50 chance of being correct -- and, that includes your belief in naturalism and evolution.
Get it? If you wish to remain logical AND believe that naturalism and evolution are both true, then you have to accept, as a logically necessary condition of those things being true, that you have no idea whether or not either naturalism or evolution are true. And, if you accept that you have no idea whether they are true, how can you logically hold a belief they are?
No. That's not what he's saying at all. He's simply making an argument that a belief in both naturalism and evolution is irrational -- due to the fact that there's a necessary logical defeater built into the belief.
That is, in no way, an appeal to ignorance.
He's not saying we can't know anything. He's saying that anyone who believes naturalism and evolution to be true must believe we can't know anything. He's saying *IF* one accepts naturalism and evolution to be true, then one must also accept that they can't know if naturalism and evolution are true. And, if you can't know that naturalism and evolution is true, then it's irrational to believe that naturalism and evolution are true. By force of logic, *IF* naturalism and evolution are both true, the BEST you can rationally determine is that there's a 50/50 chance that they're both true. But, if you can't determine the reliability of both being true beyond 50/50 odds, it's irrational to believe they're both true. Because, logically, at a 50/50 chance, you have no idea whether they're true or not.
Plantinga's argument is not an argument for, or against, naturalism and evolution actually being true or not. It doesn't address that. Nor does it address the likelihood of any possible alternative. Nor does it address any alternative belief. It's merely an argument about the rationality of a human belief in naturalism and evolution. With this argument, Plantinga argues that holding a belief in both naturalism and evolution being true is irrational -- nothing else.
ReallyWeirdThings.Com
Funny that - I would hold that the opposite is true. The only way you can ever know ANYTHING is if naturalism is true.
If your god does exist you cannot know anything because in the next second your god might change anything and everything. If we adopt the theist worldview rules such as logic, the laws of nature, and morality might change at the whim of the god - it all becomes arbitrary and subjective according to gods subjective will and therefore the theist is in no position to have any opinion about these topics.
In other words if your god does exist there is no way for us to know that murder, slavery or genocide will still be wrong tomorrow, or that the earth will continue in its orbit, or that time will run forwards, or that consequences follow actions. According to Christian doctrine God has changed these things in the past and may do so again at any moment and in such a world you could not know anything.
The only way we can ever claim any kind of reasonable expectation about the world objectively is if naturalism and thereby atheism and evolution is correct. Only if we live in such a naturalistic worldview with an ordered universe does logic, morality, and the laws of nature even begin to make sense.
The theist must in other words borrow from the worldview of an atheist/naturalist before he can even begin to reason about his god.
itsjustameme
You still appear to not understand the argument.
First of all, Plantinga's argument has nothing to do with either naturalism or evolution actually being true or not. It has only to do with the rationality of believing that both naturalism and evolution (N+E) are true. He's saying that one may rationally believe that N is true, but not E. Or, one may rationally believe that E is true, but not N. Or, one may rationally believe that both are not true. Or, one may entirely not hold a belief, one way or the other, in the truth of either one, or both, at all. But, one may not *rationally* believe that both are true. If you believe both are true, you are, necessarily, being irrational. Because, doing so gives rise to a necessary logical defeater. That is to say, to believe that both are true, logically, is to believe that you can't reliably believe that both are true. And, how can one rationally believe in something that they believe they can't reliably believe in? It's logically absurd.
You're correct, however, in so far that *IF* a non-naturalistic world is true, then we *might* very well not be able to know anything with confidence. But, that isn't logically self-defeating. It is not irrational to believe that ours is a non-naturalistic world AND believe that we can know things with confidence. It may not be correct in actuality, but it's not irrational. However, believing that N+E is true, is logically self-defeating. It is an inherently irrational belief.
- If one believes N is true, but not E, then one may rationally believe that we exist in a naturalistic world where there is no process developing us to mistake falsehoods for truth if its advantageous enough to do so. It may not be a correct belief, but it's not necessarily an irrational one.
- If one believes E is true, but not N, then one may rationally believe that, say, there's a will at work -- something like a god -- that arranges for our ability to know truth with confidence, despite evolutionary processes which value survival over truth recognition. Again, it may not be a correct belief, but it's not necessarily irrational.
- But, if one believes N+E to be true, one must accept that we are slaves to evolutionary processes, and we can't know if anything we believe to be true is actually false and we're being tricked into believing it as true because it's evolutionarily advantageous to do so. And, this includes our belief regarding N+E being true. I.e. - If I accept that N+E is true, then I must accept that my belief in N+E being true is unreliable, due to the fact I can't know if my belief is founded upon any objective truth, or if it's just evolutionarily advantageous enough that I'm being programmed to believe it as true when it's actually false. So, the belief that N+E is true has a logical defeater built into it. The belief that N+E is true, itself, defeats the reliability of the belief that N+E is true. So, the belief that N+E is true is necessarily irrational. Rejecting either N, or E, or both, gets you out of that necessary irrationality. That doesn't mean that your belief is true, or not, it just means that it's possible to hold it and remain rational.
So, a person who believes N is true, but not E. Or, one who believes E is true, but not N. Or, one who believes neither N or E is true, *may* hold their belief rationally -- entirely regardless of whether or not they're actually correct in their belief. But, a person who believes N+E is true *must* hold their belief irrationally -- again, entirely regardless of whether or not they're actually correct.
*****
If it's evolutionarily advantageous enough for you to believe a falsehood to be true, evolution may select for that trait. Evolution may have developed you to accept any given falsehood as being true, or any given truth as being false, no matter what. Since this possibility exists, in an entirely naturalistic world, one can never know how reliable any belief in truth or falsity actually is. Does 2+2=4? Or, has evolution programmed you to be convinced that 2+2=4 no matter what evidence is presented to you to the contrary? If you believe that naturalism and evolution (N+E) is true, then you must believe this to be a possibility. But, you must believe this to be a possibility with EVERYTHING you believe. So, this belief also extends to your belief that N+E is true. Therefore, the belief that N+E is true has a logical defeater built into it, and is therefore an irrational belief. To believe that N+E is true is to believe that you can't reliably believe that N+E is true. If you believe that you can reliably believe that N+E is true, then you don't actually believe that N+E is true. And, that's a logical absurdity.
He's not saying that, in actuality, evolution is incompatible with naturalism. He's saying that the belief that both are true can not be held rationally. We might live in a world where both are actually true. But, if we do, we can't reliably know it with any reasonable degree of confidence. So, even if N+E is actually true, to believe it is is irrational. If N+E is actually true, then, to remain rational, we must be satisfied to either believe it's not and be incorrect. Or, we must remain neutral to the question and accept that we just can't know. Whether N+E is actually true, or not, it is, by force of logic, irrational to believe that N+E is actually true. It may not be incorrect, but it can't be a rationally held belief.
IF you're rational AND you believe that N+E is true, THEN you must accept that you can't reliably know if N+E is true. But, if you're rational, how can you believe something that you believe can not reliably be believed? You can't. You can't believe that and remain rational. Regardless of whether or not N+E is actually true, you can either believe N+E is true, OR you can be rational, but you can't be both. Understand? The very belief that N+E is true, if it is believed, demands that your belief in N+E being true is necessarily unreliable. Therefore, it has a built-in defeater for the belief. And to hold to a belief that defeats itself is not rational.
Yes, they do that. However, in a debate or discussion forum, i see many who do not presuppose but rather bring God into the picture
There's no problem at all being demonstrated in evolution being coupled with naturalism, he simply ASSUMED one to try and refute naturalism. He failed to refute it.
Your opinion is not an argument.
@@martam4142 When did I say it was? I correctly pointed out Plantinga ASSUMED a problem so his argument fails.
@@snakeplissken512 Again, your opinion does not refute Plantinga. The EEAN stands.
Show your argument or shut up.
@@martam4142 When did I say my opinion refutes him? I simply stated a fact.
@@snakeplissken512 You stated the fact that you are a bullshitter. MTV generation, Sweet Lord. You can not refute the EEAN, so please stop wasting your time (and mine).
the 4 "f":s quote was quite hilarious..
"I’ve read some of Plantinga’s books and articles and haven’t been terribly impressed"
-Jerry Coyne
The best you can do is quote other philosophers? I don't care what others think. What do you think?
@@felixfourcolor If you don’t care what others think, why are you asking what another thinks? 🤪😜
@@felixfourcolor Jerry Coyne is a scientist.
Even when I'm a christian, I'm not sure is his argument valid. To me it seems that in evolution, beliefs can have positive effect on survival, even if they are false, but I'm not entirely sure, can illogical brain have benefit on survival, in a competition with logical brain.
I've always wondered why theists loved referencing AP and after listening (with much difficulty). I realized that he was the source of many of the fallacious arguments I've heard over the years. This is a great talk to listen to if you're of the mindset of getting into the head of many religious apologists and versing yourself of the pitfalls of this line of reasoning. so, in a way, "useful".
Is that true?
Neurochemicals randomly spouting non-sense, you uneducated p.o.crap.
But if we just argue inside the beliefs them self, inside a logical brain, then why it should get it right? Maybe it is harmful for survival that organism gets it right. Maybe the Truth compels the organism to do self harming and survival damaging actions. And this I mean in the light of the doctrine of Jesus; dying daily for others is not the best motto for survival, even when it is ultimately the most lucrative, because by doing so, you will have treasures that death can't touch.
"Plantinga *_assumes_* that evolutionary naturalist have no basis for deciding what we think about _R_ , other than the proposition _E&N_ itself. This crucial *_assumption_* is *_never_* defended".
-Ellliot Sober
-Branden Fitelson
We would like to know your defense Plantinga.
"Plantinga must show that _E&N_ not only defeats _R_ but also defeats the claim that 'at least a non-negligible minority of our beliefs are true"
-Elliot Sober
-Branden Fitelson
We're waiting Plantinga.
"he *_never_* explains how they are relevant to establishing that _E&N_ defeats _R_ ".
-Elliot Sober
-Branden Fitelson
His "defeaters" defeated nothing. His argument is refuted.
(all emphasis mine)
No point in replying to you since you keep editting and editting the post.
What a pointless and silly tactic.
Show your argument and defend it.
Quote mining = waste of time.
The EEAN has certainly hit a nerve.
Checkmate naturalists. Your superstition is dying.
@@martam4142 It's a different post. Plantinga has been refuted more than once, no need to beat a dead horse.
@@undefeateddebater9438 No sweetheart. The EEAN stands, untouched.
Where did Plantinga went "wrong"?
@@martam4142 Read my OP.
@@undefeateddebater9438 Quote mining, boy.
Develop an ARGUMENT, premises and conclusion.
Thank you.
By stating "Theist" you mean one who believes in god, how is that not presupposing something?
His argument has had zero impact within philosophy and science. He got refuted so he had to revise his argument and then got refuted - once again - and revised even more. If his argument is so "solid" why does he change it when it gets refuted?
First time being exposed to the scientific process?
@@RSCa3218 Plantinga simply doesn't understand evolutionary theory.
@@championdebater7088 and?
@@RSCa3218 And his argument fails.
@@championdebater7088 that is the nature of the scientific method. Hence my asking you if this was your first time witnessing it.
Wow, this is the guy who William Lane Craig speaks so highly of? They deserve each other.
+John May yeah I'm sure you have a lot of insight
Good one!
+John May Craig and about every philosopher of religion since the 60s including atheistic ones like Mackie.
"philosopher of religion"
That right there pretty much means he's full of hot air.
Osmosis You can add metaphysicians and epistemologists to that list. People who question Plantinga's credential should really consider the fact that the man is a highly regarded philosophers respected by his peers, who taught graduate students at Notre Dame for over twenty years, and who made notable contributions to the field of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of religion. If you think his argument is that bad, then instead of attacking his character, try to refute it.
The point he makes in 59 about religion shows what I mean by the shell game of true.
Religion is not a single thing, but a label for a who slew of practices and beliefs, all with different origins and purposes. Religions are false beliefs if taken as a whole, from an objective viewpoint, but TRUE (all of them) in regard to the benefits of tribalism and certain dogma that they provide to early man in barbaric societies. Much like eating sweets is bad for us now but GOOD for us in the past.
Well true in the fact that evolution is fact but not everyone believes in it. It depends on the definition of belief.
He hasn't demonstrated there's a problem with belief in naturalism and evolution but simply assumes one and then builds an argument attempting to refute naturalism. And, as other users below point out, he doesn't bother to distinguish between metaphysical and methodological naturalism. If this is a serious argument in philosophy I would hate to see an unserious one.
Lol. He has demonstrated that believing you can have Reliability under N+E is possible, but that it is also IRRATIONAL.
@@martam4142 You need to learn the argument as you have no idea of what you're talking about.
@@realitychecker1298 Sweet Jesus. The EAAN main objective is, precisely, to show how N+E are incompatible while you want to remain rational.
Reason and N+E are incompatible.
@@martam4142 Plantinga has never demonstrated they're incompatible, he assumes they are.
@@championdebater7088 Void assertion. Show us the argument (assuming you have one).
"Plantinga’s effort to stave off the conflict between theism and evolution is a failure. Either he is buying into creationist fantasies that have been put to rest long ago, or he is hammering on the excessively weak claim that it is logically and metaphysically possible that, all evidence to the contrary, evolution unfolds under supernatural guidance."
- Maarten Boudry
Philosopher
Mere opinions. They do not look like an argument... Wait! They are not.
The EAAN is exquisite in its ellegance and very powerful.
Atheists, you have been dealt a mortal blow.
@@martam4142 Please explain why you assume it's an opinion and provide evidence disputing anything that Boudry stated. Thank you.
@@championdebater7088 Because there's no argument there. It's just an opinion about someone else's argument, that is incredibly derogatory and shows a lack of respect and intellect.
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. So while evolution might unfold without supernatural guidance, you're going to have to explain how it got started under your naturalist world view. To which you will say "I don't know". At which point, you have a theory that lives in space without any grounding in anything.
It'd be quite funny to watch if it wasn't so dangerously arrogant.
@@VACatholic No argument needed to refute was has already been refuted. Please inform yourself accordingly.
@@VACatholic Hehe. Thank you. According to naturalists, "no-thing" has properties and "no-thing" = the Universe.
Materialism has been dealt fatal blows, the EEAN is a thorn on their side :)
Naturalists: Please explain how information can be explained by physics and chemistry e.g. explain the semiotics of "ILOVEYOU" written on a piece of paper in the terms of the chemistry and physics of the paper and ink?
"Naturalists: Please explain how information can be explained by physics and chemistry e.g."
- But just before we address your malformed question, why do you think the argument from ignorance is going to help your case?
Rayvvvone What case? It's a question ..just answer the "malformed question" without using agency as an explanation.
Jaymes McKenzie have you stopped beating your wife is the same kind of thing..
Please explain something nobody can explain OR my position is proved.. the argument from ignorance is useless.
Your question is irrelevant. Please explain how you believe in a god with no evidence for it.
Please explain why you resort to mental games instead of offering any evidence for what you believe in.
Please explain why you think asking annoying questions like a 4 year old should REPLACE evidence for your fantasy.
WITHOUT USING AGENCY.. so if I can't think of something you think you PROVED AGENCY OR ANYTHING ELSE?
this is just retarded.
Rayvvvone Whoa, chill out bro... turn off the caps lock and relax, lol.
"Please explain something nobody can explain OR my position is proved.. the argument from ignorance is useless." Cool, what argument did I make?
"Your question is irrelevant." To you perhaps.
"have you stopped beating your wife is the same kind of thing.." I don't even know how to take this, lol.
"Please explain why you resort to mental games instead of offering any evidence for what you believe in." Again, why do I need to insert evidence into a question? And I'm sorry this question is stressing you out so much.
"Please explain why you think asking annoying questions like a 4 year old should REPLACE evidence for your fantasy." You are beating a dead horse, this is the third time you have alluded to there needing to be evidence presented upon asking a question. Why did you scream "replace" at me though? And the expression "evidence for you fantasy" is sort of a contradiction since fantasies are subjective in nature,
"WITHOUT USING AGENCY.. so if I can't think of something you think you PROVED AGENCY OR ANYTHING ELSE?" This is hard to read when you are yelling, jk, lol. No I don't think a question in general can prove something but rather it is meant to make us all think; or as you stated be a "mind game" like Lumosity.com or something, lol. Look you can answer the question or ignore it but I don't see how this long post of yours is relevant. Have a great day!
Jaymes McKenzie
Precisely. Science is descriptive, not explanatory.
"Naturalism emerges unscathed from Plantinga’s attack, and he has done nothing that comes even close of averting the conflict between science and religion".
- Maarten Boudry
Blah blah. Mere assertions.
Address the argument or go home.
Quotes are not reasons.
EEAN = Naturalism + Evolution 》Irrational belief.
@@martam4142 Plantinga has been refuted that's why he had to revise his argument.
@@championdebater7088 Naturalism is dead. Naturalism can not account for intentionatily, consciousness, free will and the self.
@@martam4142 Naturalism, methodological, underpins all of science and your contention it cannot account for some things is fallacious: argument from ignorance.
@@championdebater7088 Very bad grammar. What do you mean? It is not clear what you are trying to say.
Please elaborate.
Thank you.
To summarize his argument:
(a) Naturalistic evolution cannot give rise to reliable reasoning ability
(b) Is E and N are both true, we are likely delusional by (a), so argument for E and N (or any argument at all) is likely wrong.
First, I point out that (b) is just a simple logic, and (a) is topic in evolutionary psychology/cognitive science. So nothing is uniquely insightful here.
His arguments for (a) is well within the domain of cognitive science, and they would not be accepted. Specifically, his claim that wrong beliefs can give rise to correct behaviour is only true in limited context like the tiger example. An organism has to do way more than running away from a tiger to survive, and complex behaviours require a coherency in reasoning - that's what natural selection enforces.
There's a ton of literature on the topic from modern neuroscience and cogsci, and he does not even come close in addressing them. He just makes a hand-wavy claim with limited knowledge. Wrong way to apply philosophical thinking
This is not meant as a critique, just a clarification. It seems to me that your reconstruction of the argument does not represent what Plantinga offered. His argument is more like this (where R stands for the reliability of our cognitive faculties to produce true beliefs):
1) The probability of R on N&E is low or inscrutable.
2) Anyone who accepts N&E and (1) has a defeater for R.
3) Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for all their beliefs.
One relevant difference between (1-3) and your formulation of (a-b) is that (1-3) does not need to show that N&E cannot result in R. It only needs to show that the probability of R is low or inscrutable. The second premise does not need to entail that we are delusional beings, that R is false, or even that the probability of R is low. All it requires is that the probability of R is low or inscrutable.
But like I say, this was only meant as a clarification. Your comments about cognitive science can still defeat (1-3). I don’t know anything about the literature. Do most cognitive scientists/neorscientists hold that mental states (beliefs) cause brain states? I would have thought the majority view for naturalists was either that mental states don’t exist or mental states are fixed by brain states.
Watch the video again. And pay attention.
This seems dangerously close to Presuppositionalism wrapped up in a better argument. At least until one unwraps it from the denseness. I thought I had a handle on the argument, then I realized I didn't, now I realize that I think I do and my original opinion is still correct. Help me out; is he saying that we can't really know anything unless we presuppose God?
I think he is saying we cannot know anything unless God *exists*. Presupposing its existence or not does not prevent you from knowing things, because God won't stop existing only because you don't believe in him.
I guess my problem is that I am not understanding why it is a bad thing that our certainty may only be 50/50 (or less). In the context of Evolution and Naturalism this level of certainty is just the way it is.
"Funnily, he doesn't respond to my review of his own book"
-Maarten Boudry
Philosopher
(Twitter feed)
Hmmm, I wonder why?
Because Plantinga has better things to do?
And by the way, aheists' egos are "mere chemical illusions". Normal people do not care about nobodies.
@@martam4142 Better things to do like ignoring he got refuted. Got it.
@@championdebater7088 Got what, silly boy? The EEAN is alive and it has become one of the last nails on the coffin of naturalism.
@@martam4142 Methodological naturalism still underpins science and Plantinga's argument had zero effect. Natural phenomena is all that is observed.
@@championdebater7088 That is a philosophical claim. You'd better be ready to defend it.
Conservatives deal in facts and liberal wokeness believe in feelings , so this talk is not intelligible for them . I saw this when Larry Elder talked to two guys from tmz both guys told Larry your too concerned with facts not feelings , WHAT ? Go figure
Does it change your feelings about this talk to know that Plantinga is himself very liberal (along with most intellectuals)? This is silly lol
@@andrekapteyn9964 Plantinga is a theologian , not a Politician..
Materialists do not see humans as objects, rather as subjects.
About his first possibility (around 30:00): human beliefs are observably not epiphenomenal regarding human behavior (nor natural selection, inasmuch as behavior is visible to selective processes, which it is almost entirely). Ask "are people's behaviors influenced by the beliefs they have about the world?" The answer is of course yes. For example, if a person believes a certain kind of berry is poisonous, they will avoid eating it even if they get very hungry, whereas they likely would eat it if they were hungry and had no knowledge about it, and therefore no belief. This is also an example of evolution selecting for 'truth producing cognition.' Past human beings that did not generate true beliefs about the world were very possibly less likely to survive.
Yes, but there is a whole host of other beliefs about a berry that would create the same response. Evolution is ordered to survival not truth. What is truth in a naturalistic world anyway?
I don't think the second possibility is a very good argument either. The brain functions as an intermediary between the sense organs and the muscles-information about the environment enters the sense organs (eyes, ears, etc.) travels through sense nerves to the brain, and then the brain processes the nerve signals it receives and converts it into different signals it sends through the motor nerves, causing certain muscles to contract or relax, making the organism to move in a certain way. Essentially, the brain takes information about its environment and turns it into bodily movements in a way determined by its structure. We also know that experience of the world can cause humans to change their behaviors, implying the structure of their brains can change in response to the sensory information they have previously received about the world. For example, the first time a person encounters fire, they may touch it out of curiosity and get burned. After this experience, when they encounter fire again, they will not touch it, and will feel compelled to avoid it. The same sensory input that first caused them to extend their arm into the fire now does not cause them to move their arm at all; the brain is translating the same environmental input into a different behavioral output, meaning its structure was likely altered by their first encounter with fire. We can call this change in structure 'belief,' or at least the neurophysiological aspect of belief. In this view of belief, beliefs about the world will (1) affect human behavior by virtue of their neurophysiological structure, and (2) will tend reflect the nature of the actual external world. The second property is likely true because brains whose structure is reflective of the external world and also tends to become more reflective of it as it experiences it will be more favored by natural selection.
"there's no particular probability at all that it [natural selection] would be modifying their [beliefs'] contents as well in the direction of greater truth or greater reliability on the part of these structures that produce these beliefs" (37:46). I don't know why he thinks this. Under the naturalist framework he's criticizing, the 'truth' of a belief is most obviously understood as a kind of correspondence between the structures that produce beliefs and the actual nature of the external world. That is, the set of all possible beliefs can be understood as a set of possible brain structures, and the set of true beliefs can be understood as the output of a certain one-to-one function which takes states of the external world and maps each of them to a unique corresponding brain structure such that in its output space information about the external world relevant to survival would be preserved. Because meaningful information about the external world is relevant to the brain's ability to turn environmental inputs into evolutionarily-preferential behavior, there would be every reason to expect that the brain would evolve to generate beliefs which corresponded to the actual state of the external world by means of such a function.
@@phillipbrandel7932 So? Even supposing everything youre saying is entailed by the naturalist position (which to say is a stretch would be an understatement since what you seem to be describing is a sort of reductive physicalism with respect to beliefs and brain states, one of the lesser popular of the many possible positions), even if there were unique corresponding brain structures for each external stimuli, what says that that particular corresponding brain structure (which according to you literally just IS the belief) has to be the "true" belief? Its being fixed (or mapped as you say) by one particular external state of the world certainly doesnt mean that its being fixed as a true belief. All of plantingas examples of the Lion chasing paul but paul believing its actually a fluffy kitten that he must evade for fun or whatever etc would all still apply. The exact same external world state is present in every single example, yet in every example a different mistaken belief is held about the world state. Even if the world state fixes the specific brain structure, as long as that brain structure is evolutionarily beneficial, it doesnt matter what its truth value actually is; it could be that the tiger is a holographic illusion that is the signal of the start of a 1500 meter race. Either way precisley the same behavior is exhibited- running.
@@Raiddd__Reality that’s ‘who’.
I see no difference. All beliefs are produced by faulty cognitive faculties, including our beliefs about what constitutes as valid reasoning.
16.30 - Al makes comment to an atheist before Dawin didnt have a good response to how life got here.....the answer we dont know seems not sufficient to AL or a believer, but an atheist has no problem saying that. For the believer to say they know it was god is based on no evidence or knowledge. That is the difference here - science is the best method we have for understanding nature and religion is good for pretending to understand something without evidence.
Philosophy is a search for truth. Religions often find their truth by a deity. The goal is the same, however the methods differ.
No one possesses all knowledge/truth. Truth is found through evidence. Evidence (for an individual) is found through experience. Many claim to have experienced God. Is it reasonable to say there may be a deity? It is reasonable to seek to uncover the nature of this deity?
If not, what reasonable explanation is there to remain ignorant toward their experience?
The belief that 7+5=12 may not have significant behavioural consequences, but the abillity to count which it presupposes does. We know crows and pigeons for instance can count. This is an evolutionarily deep cognitive ability which can be very helpful in any conflict situation ("They're seven against our five"), or to keep track of group members ("one of us is missing"), or a host of other situations ("Have all the predators come out of the cave?") Many other such abilities (such as keeping track of time and seasons, inferring fire from smoke or rain from clouds, detecting mood changes in conspecifics, etc.) would have great survival value dependent on their reliability.
Again, as plantinga said in the q&a section, you are presupposing that the content of beliefs can cause behavior on naturalism and evolution, which while at least seemingly possible is not the most likely relation of belief content to behavior given naturalism and evolution. But even GIVEN that relation being in fact how it works, your comment wouldnt amount to much. Because maybe so, maybe what youre saying about these certain beliefs being useful is true. That in no way indicates whatsoever that these beliefs are actually true beliefs. They could very well simply be adaptive and useful FALSE beliefs, given naturalism and evolution.
@@Raiddd__ False. Beliefs inform actions.
@@Raiddd__ Which is more beneficial to survival, reliable or unreliable cognitive faculties? Get a grip. Plantinga’s argument is asinine.
The EAAN was refuted in 1997 by Fitelson and Sober in their paper "Plantinga's Probability Arguments Against Evolutionary Naturalism"
Thx
@@felixfourcolor You're welcome.
I just looked it up, F & S refutted an earlier version of the argument, Plantinga acknowledged that and had fixed it.
@felixfourcolor Yeah, he modified it. I still think it's a very good refutation. Plantinga's updates have been refuted too but I'm not sure about his latest version.
That depends on the theist. Some presuppose and others do not
NO! Models give estimates, models give predictions, often only drek, but when a model gives something of use, that allows better planning, provides cures, gives an inter-system explanations then it does matter. How can saving costs, saving lives or better planning be "over-rated"?
The kid's response @ 1;04;46 is absolutely absurd and juvenile. He absolutely needs to explore a different field of study, but with his attitude I highly doubt he will be able to succeed anywhere!
What does fame have to do with science?
If god was self-evident we would all believe in it. I have never heard of an axioms for instance that supports god/s.
for "the definite discrimination required", see George Holmes Howison's "The Limits of Evolution, and other essays, illustrating the metaphysical theory of personal idealism" ("free" via google books).
I guess some of this depends on Descartes -- "That which is clear and distinct is true, because God is no deceiver." Otherwise we may have this problem.
Now that conflict theory between religion and science is completely bunked, someone has to make up shit about religion and philosophy--here we go again.