(October 4, 2013 at 1:26 am)Rational AKD Wrote: 1. P1 if naturalism is true, then there is nothing beyond our physical selves.

Fail!

There could be some sort of explanation for consciousness beyond our current understanding. Maybe these "souls" are yet to be discovered. Once they are, we will be able to study them and eventually explain them. You know what they will be then?

"Natural"

Quote:2. P2 evolution is a process that operates with the goal of survivability.

Fail!

Evolution has no goals. There can be random mutations that have nothing to do with survivability.

Quote:3. C1 our cognitive functions have come into being by the process of evolution- from P1&P2

Fail due to failure of P1 and P2.

Quote:4. C2 all our cognitive functions came about for the purpose of survivability which is not necessarily hinged on determining the truth- from P2&C1.

Fail!

Thinking rationally and determining what is real has much to do with survivability. Part of what makes us the dominant species of this planet is not that we are killing machines. Lions are better at that. What makes us the dominant species is we are rational, can work together in communities and make tools.

Quote:5. C3 we have no way to know if our reasoning leads us to truth in any proposition including the proposition of naturalism itself. any and all propositions based on our cognitive faculties (which are all of them) then are just as likely to be correct as they are to be incorrect- from P2&C2.

Nonsensical solipsism.

I have no problem conceding that rationality cannot support itself. So lets just throw that sucker out. However, why should that reflect more poorly on naturalism than on whacko superstition? What reason do you think you have for embracing the supernatural?

Now just because I can't use rationality alone to justify my embrace of naturalism doesn't lead to the conclusion that naturalism should be rejected. Are you claiming otherwise? And what exactly do you propose should replace rationality? Are you against rationality in all cases, or only when it is used to support the rejection of God?

I ask because you surely do seem to be going to great pains to make a rational argument. Given the thesis of your argument, why do you bother? If you are persuaded by your own argument, what gives? If not, then we have that at least in common.

(October 4, 2013 at 11:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 11:42 pm)Chas Wrote: The argument is absurd.

We can see that it is rational by observation, by cause and effect.

Science works, bitch.

Just for reference:





But. . . not quite. Science works whether we're in the Matrix, or the Mind of God, or a physical universe-- so long as there are consistent observations to be made, and underlying patterns to reveal, and the ability to test hypotheses about them. If there is something systematically lacking or flawed in the way we perceive or think, it isn't guaranteed that we will (or even can) be aware of it.

And that evolution gave us a mind that can deduce, project, imagine, and so on, because this increased our chances of surviving to procreate; even evolved to be more attractive for procreation.

The science works in the context of a functioning universe. It doesn't do anything to answer the WHY questions: why is there a universe rather than not. WHY is there actual sentience, rather than just processing of information? It also can't answer subjective questions, like what it the best way to live?

Now, I'm not seeing science and religion as competing sources of truth. In that regard, science wins epically. However, you are missing RAKD's point-- there's no remedy for uncertainty, because we can never know for sure where all the experiences we have (including looking through telescopes etc.) come from. Objective naturalism fails as an absolute test of reality due to intrinsic agnosticism.

Fine, but there is no evidence for a matrix or simulation or mind of god.

There is evidence that we are in a world actually composed of matter and energy, that our minds evolved to deal reasonable accurately with a narrow range of that, that we are able to extend our evolved senses to perceive somewhat more than the narrow band evolution gave us.

(October 5, 2013 at 12:03 am)whateverist Wrote: I have no problem conceding that rationality cannot support itself. So lets just throw that sucker out. However, why should that reflect more poorly on naturalism than on whacko superstition? What reason do you think you have for embracing the supernatural?

Now just because I can't use rationality alone to justify my embrace of naturalism doesn't lead to the conclusion that naturalism should be rejected. Are you claiming otherwise? And what exactly do you propose should replace rationality? Are you against rationality in all cases, or only when it is used to support the rejection of God?

I ask because you surely do seem to be going to great pains to make a rational argument. Given the thesis of your argument, why do you bother? If you are persuaded by your own argument, what gives? If not, then we have that at least in common.

None of the OP applies to the theist who believes a personal god created them in a way that their cognitive functions are reliable...

(October 4, 2013 at 9:05 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: how can you test your cognitive abilities without using your cognitive abilities?

You look for internal consistency.

For example, in "A Beautiful Mind", Nash was able to determine his best friend and his daughter were imaginary because "she never gets older".

(October 5, 2013 at 12:15 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 12:03 am)whateverist Wrote: I have no problem conceding that rationality cannot support itself. So lets just throw that sucker out. However, why should that reflect more poorly on naturalism than on whacko superstition? What reason do you think you have for embracing the supernatural?

Now just because I can't use rationality alone to justify my embrace of naturalism doesn't lead to the conclusion that naturalism should be rejected. Are you claiming otherwise? And what exactly do you propose should replace rationality? Are you against rationality in all cases, or only when it is used to support the rejection of God?

I ask because you surely do seem to be going to great pains to make a rational argument. Given the thesis of your argument, why do you bother? If you are persuaded by your own argument, what gives? If not, then we have that at least in common.

None of the OP applies to the theist who believes a personal god created them in a way that their cognitive functions are reliable...

But is it rational for the theist or anyone else to believe a personal god created them with their cognitive functioning wired correctly? Do theists suppose that God just screwed up when wiring the brains of atheists? Rationality is in no position to support itself but then what of belief in genies? Believers can no more justify their belief in genies by faith. That is subject to same problem of circularity as rationality.

Better to just stop the attempt to catch our own tails, whether by faith or rationality. Why not simply admit that in the end each man chooses those beliefs which seem most fit given his circumstances? I cannot prove my belief in a natural world devoid of genies without appealing to some premise which depends on the individual. The same is true for every faithful follower of any supernatural system.

The level 7 atheist may balk at this concession but as an agnostic with no belief in gods, I am happy to.

(October 5, 2013 at 12:44 am)whateverist Wrote:

(October 5, 2013 at 12:15 am)FallentoReason Wrote: None of the OP applies to the theist who believes a personal god created them in a way that their cognitive functions are reliable...

But is it rational for the theist or anyone else to believe a personal god created them with their cognitive functioning wired correctly?

According to their presupposition, yes.

Quote: Do theists suppose that God just screwed up when wiring the brains of atheists?

I don't think you've grasped the subtlety yet... obviously this is a mutually exclusive case. Either, we're the product of an unguided process whereby truth isn't the end goal (as there is no goal) OR as the theist believes, we're created by a personal god that wired our brains to be able to interact with our surroundings and get truth out of it.

Answering your question, brains have all been wired equally, whether theist or atheist *under* the the theistic p.o.v. of origins.

That's all I'm trying to clear up; what it is the theist is actually saying when relaying Platinga's argument.

(October 4, 2013 at 11:12 am)Rational AKD Wrote: what features would those be?

All sorts of genetic diseases to start with.

(October 4, 2013 at 11:12 am)Rational AKD Wrote: not really. the only thing that is beneficial to survival is to behave in a manner that is better for survival. this does not entail true beliefs.

Without a certain minimal amount of truth present in your beliefs, you would not be able to behave in a way beneficial to survival.

(October 4, 2013 at 11:12 am)Rational AKD Wrote: not epistemological reason. not metaphysical reason.

Also, not necessary.

(October 5, 2013 at 12:14 am)Chas Wrote: Fine, but there is no evidence for a matrix or simulation or mind of god.

There is evidence that we are in a world actually composed of matter and energy, that our minds evolved to deal reasonable accurately with a narrow range of that, that we are able to extend our evolved senses to perceive somewhat more than the narrow band evolution gave us.

To use evidence is to use your sense perceptions to draw inferences. If there is some systemic failure, weakness, or lacking in human perception, then evidence itself is meaningless as a determiner of absolute truth. So we end up with something like:

If X is true, X proves X is true.
If X is false, X cannot prove X is true.

Physical evidence is compelling only because we are fully immersed in X. Or to put it more accurately, we ARE X. So from an experiential point of view, evidence feels very compelling. From the perspective of a philosophical search for absolute truth, it borders on useless.

(October 4, 2013 at 9:05 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: how can you test your cognitive abilities without using your cognitive abilities? you can't. you can't reason without using your reason. if you are unable to reason, then you are unable to determine what is true and what is false. if you're unable to do that, then everything is just as likely to be true as it is to be false and there's no way for us to determine one way or the other because that would require reason.

Wow, you are about one step away from presuppositional apologetics here, and as a consequence, one step away from making me vomit.

You can test your cognitive abilities through a number of means. For one, you can check your reasoning against the reasoning and experiences of other people. And yes, you can ask, what if everyone is suffering from the same lack of adequate cognitive processes? Well, then I appeal to evidence and the physical world. But what if the physical world is just some big illusion brought on by our lacking reasoning capacities?

Then why should I care?

As I said earlier, why should I care about any phenomena that doesn't affect me and cannot be perceived? What good does that do me? How could I possibly be justified in doing so?

The reason naturalism works is because even under the solipsistic world you're envisioning, the natural world is the only one that acts upon us. We're subject to its laws, our senses seem to correspond to its attributes, our experiences, for the most part, roughly match up. Yes, there could be a bunch of woo out there that's possible, but if it has no intrusions into the physical world then its indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist, and if its presence has even the smallest iota of effect, then it is a part of the natural world too and thus explainable in a naturalistic framework.