RE: Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?
April 18, 2012 at 2:22 pm
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 2:25 pm by NoMoreFaith.)
I don't think you've added anything to the original statement to be honest, other than clarification that skepticism about all things is indeed self-refuting.
This is precisely my point, the refutation to the argument lies not solely in showing Morality is proven through evolution, although that's more than feasible, but the assumption that we should be skeptical about all things.
I use the word faith very loosely certainly, as an indication that the only things we can believe without evidence (i.e. have faith in) are those that WOULD be self-refuting to deny, although we cannot prove them. Axiomatic principles as you put it.
What the argument in the OP states is that we should be skeptical about the evolutionary account itself, which I attempt to show is an asinine argument as there is a basis for that "belief" based upon the axiomatic principles we MUST adher to in order to infer knowledge of anything.
Skepticism does therefore not infer that we should be skeptical about all things, merely that we should reasonably expect to be able to make a predictive statement about its effects, and if we cannot, we should not assign it with a label of "true".
What Platinga and Lane seem to want to do, is insert God as a base assumption because the God principle offers us no predictive abilities about reality.
The God hypothesis can predict nothing, and therefore fails to adher to the basic principles of knowledge, and the only way to crowbar him into the world, is to set him up as a base assumption, which doesn't work, because the hypothesis is not inescapable in the way that the first assumptions are made.
This is precisely my point, the refutation to the argument lies not solely in showing Morality is proven through evolution, although that's more than feasible, but the assumption that we should be skeptical about all things.
I use the word faith very loosely certainly, as an indication that the only things we can believe without evidence (i.e. have faith in) are those that WOULD be self-refuting to deny, although we cannot prove them. Axiomatic principles as you put it.
What the argument in the OP states is that we should be skeptical about the evolutionary account itself, which I attempt to show is an asinine argument as there is a basis for that "belief" based upon the axiomatic principles we MUST adher to in order to infer knowledge of anything.
Skepticism does therefore not infer that we should be skeptical about all things, merely that we should reasonably expect to be able to make a predictive statement about its effects, and if we cannot, we should not assign it with a label of "true".
What Platinga and Lane seem to want to do, is insert God as a base assumption because the God principle offers us no predictive abilities about reality.
The God hypothesis can predict nothing, and therefore fails to adher to the basic principles of knowledge, and the only way to crowbar him into the world, is to set him up as a base assumption, which doesn't work, because the hypothesis is not inescapable in the way that the first assumptions are made.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
