"Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism

[Mudhammam]

I forgot that I when I had mentioned it in that other thread, it was the exact same argument. I thought this was a variatian of the point (I have had many tiring back and forths with him on this), not a verbatum repeat. It looks like it is. My apologies.

hehe... it happens... tese people do make us loose our marbles every now and then!

In all seriousness pocaracas, I think I am losing my marbles in dealing with my theist brother (or all religious hacks... scratch that, all hacks). You see, I have also gone through many of the same points you offer with him and there's always some incoherent philosophical retort that is so befuddled in bad logic and abstract thought but mixed with enough "commonsense" premises that make it tedious to dissect...over and over. That's my opinion anyway but then again, when theist philosophers often speak on ontologies I think its bullshit. Daniel Dennett summed it up perfectly when he described William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4

Essentially I see my brother's argument as "theism is true because I assume it is true." This is the last response he gave me (his posts are always obnoxiously lengthy):

On the list (1-10), (3) and (4) are of particular importance. (3) is explicit to naturalism (it cannot be denied without denying naturalism since it is the very definition of naturalism or what makes naturalism distinctively naturalism). (4, determinism) is necessarily true if (3) is true. So on naturalism, though in my view I do not think that we would exist, granting that we would for the sake of the argument, we might have an apparatus for holding some true beliefs. That is to say, if it were possible that the law and constants necessary for permitting life came into being with time, space, and energy 13.8 billion years ago, and then by a chance of 10 to the 40,000th power life began according to Fred Hoyle (note: the number of atoms in the observable universe is 10 to the 78th to 10 to the 82nd power), and eventually produced creatures with minds like ours, I grant that I would be able to have true beliefs. That is to say, I may be able to hold the belief that there exists in front of my condo a tree, and the car in the parking lot is not a red Dodge Viper but a grey Toyota Corolla, and so forth. These beliefs are grasped empirically, and so since we have the ability to transfer short-term memory into long-term memory, and later in the evening when I am writing a response to you, I can access these memories and then use them to reply to your response. In this way the imprint of the event of observing the grey Toyota Corolla can be poorly reproduced as an abstraction. Logic, mathematics, and any belief that is not presently empirical (the computer in front of me for example) is held in some mental way either sub-consciously or intuitively, or as an abstraction. So let us grant all of this on naturalism. However, on naturalism the method of obtaining all of our present abstract beliefs (as opposed to data that we do not presently observe is by (3), a natural phenomenon occurring that causes something rather than nothing and (4) determinism from those early moments in which laws and energy came into being.

So let us take (3) and (4) and consider them for a moment in how they would relate to our apparatus for knowing truth on naturalism. On naturalism, a physical event causes a mental event, which generates a particular non-empirical idea or belief (or abstract thought). The physical event always proceeds the mental event and the generation of a particular idea. That is to say, on naturalism, there is no genuine free thinking. A belief that Christianity is false is the result of nothing more than a build up of electrons in the brain and a particular arrangement of neurons that produced the belief that Christianity is false. You made no genuinely free choice in this particular manner whatsoever as the physical event proceeds the generation of that belief or idea. As the naturalist must hold, his or her belief is the result of a physical event (the event caused and coerced your mind into the present belief that Christianity is false and in my case that Christianity is true). Well, then this would apply to series (1-10) on naturalism. Beliefs (3) and (4) are are held on the basis of a physical event, which caused neurons to fire in such a way to generate the idea that (3) and (4) are true. However, (3) and (4) are ideas, they are not held as an immediate or present empirical experience like in the case of the grey Toyota Corolla, the tree in front of my house, or my computer when I am observing them (nor have they ever been observed or shown to be true in any way that would amount to evidence for believing naturalism or rejecting the apparent truth that humans can act intentionally). So, not only are they non-empirical, we have no good reasons to think that any single part of the series (1-10) is true. Further, some of them are apparently false such as is the case with 4, 6, and 7 (and I personally hold 1 and 3 as well).

So, the argument was not that we could not have a reliable cognition to hold true beliefs but that granting the idea that naturalism is true and thus determinism is true, I must also hold that a physical event preceded and caused my belief in naturalism (1-10, and thus 3 and 4). If I hold that these particular ideas were imposed on me as the result of a physical event that caused me to think that they are true (since this is the way in which I am constrained to believe that I developed my metaphysical worldview on naturalism), there can be no justification for holding that these ideas would be very likely to be true ideas granting the kinds of ideas that we are presented with on series (1-10) on the basis of the means by which the naturalist must believe that he or she holds them. Rather the means provide justification for disbelieving that they are true. And so it follows necessarily that there could be no justification for believing that naturalism is true. That is, the idea arising in our minds that naturalism is true in itself provides a defeater for believing in naturalism.

On Christian theism the series 1-10, could look something like this,

1. A personal God exists.
2. Miracles have occurred.
3. Natural processes exist and account for all regularities within the universe.
4. Determinism applies to physical processes but limited human freedom exists.
5. Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
6. Humans have objective value and this can be subjectively apprehended.
7. In coherence with 4, we have objective moral obligations and can partially carry them out.
8. There is a resurrection and thus life after death.
9. The universe has an objective purpose or meaning.
10. Every person's life has an objective purpose or meaning.

Granting (1), (4), (5), the dilemma is not in any way applicable to Christian theism as beliefs are not merely the result of a determined process in which physical events determined all of my worldview beliefs. Notably, human freedom, God himself being personal (revelation of himself, and then the possibility for specific self-authenticating revelation), his providence in guiding persons into truth, as well as (4), (6), and (7) being apparently true, demands the conclusion that not only does "Naturalism vs. Naturalism" not apply to Christian belief, but series (1-10) could be justifiably be held provided that (1) and (5) are true. So then, even if the Christian granted physical and mental determinism, (1-3 and 5-10) could still be justifiably held to be true provided that (1) and (5) are true. That is to say, the proposed argument is unique to naturalism by way in which a naturalist is constrained by his or her belief, (if they think it through) to also find within their belief a defeater for their belief.

Sometimes I wish I had more atheist friends who enjoy debate because all of my debates with him are on Facebook and there is usually a Christian buddy or two that chime in with their sheer stupidity. It is very annoying and yet I am compelled to engage because I personally would like to see the lack of critical thought promoted by religion eliminated from serious dialogue.