rational naturalism is impossible!

[downbeatplumb]

maybe you should listen for a change. if naturalism is true, evolution is driven for the need to survive.

No, it is driven by surviving and successfully breeding, "need" doesn't come into it.

[Dunno]

for my first post actually arguing for something, I decided to do something new. i'm using an argument I haven't seen here yet and one I think is very interesting. if you would like more details on it, it is an argument developed by Alvin Plantinga in my own reiteration.

instead of arguing a proposition is true or false, this argument concludes that it is impossible to rationally accept naturalism. here are the reasons for this:
1. P1 if naturalism is true, then there is nothing beyond our physical selves.
2. P2 evolution is a process that operates with the goal of survivability.
3. C1 our cognitive functions have come into being by the process of evolution- from P1&P2
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.
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.

conclusion: it is impossible to rationally believe in naturalism. the very concept of naturalism entails the possibility of our cognitive faculties being unable to reason truth, which includes all truths including naturalism itself. it's self defeating. and before someone asks why this doesn't apply to religion like Christianity, the answer is P1 isn't a claim of Christianity and in fact is inconsistent with Christianity. if P1 is false, then C1 doesn't logically follow. a Christian can simply claim their cognitive faculties are indicators of truth by the intent of our designer.

extra notes- before i'm misunderstood I want to make it clear, this argument is not formulated to prove naturalism is false. I hope to see no one who interprets it that way. it is only meant to show how it is impossible to rationally believe it for the reasons in the argument. it shows that presupposing naturalism is true entails the best probability for all our beliefs to be correct is 50/50 since we can't know if our cognitive faculties are in fact indicators of truth. that is it.

yes, I like this post because it puts some of what I was trying to say more politely, concretely, and all around less like a sailor. believing in a deity that you can't see or hear isn't necessarily reasonable, it's like someone believed the guy who always talks to himself, but because that's the way things are for a lot of people, it is advantageous to adapt and to believe this is true. Therefore even our truths are just things we find to be advantageous to us in terms of survival. Someone from a religious christian family would be ostracized if they objected to the truths. To search for something really true is hard to do. Our ability to reason is also based on our hunter, farming, domestication, abilities, putting it to use for something like searching for the truth-- well, the christian is the vicious hunter, he doesn't care if what he speaks is truth, just that he has followers, and you are the honest man or woman, searching for truth regardless of who believes you or the cost.

[MindForgedManacle]

This is basically just Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Here are some ways to dismantle the argument:

-Take on the Coherence view of truth. This argument relies on the correspondence theory of truth - that truth is ' out there' - which is popular, but also has known problems. Adopting the coherentist view that truth refers to statements that cohere together renders the argument unsound. As would the Pragmatist theory of truth.


-Evolution isn't teleological. It's a result of population mechanics given an organisms abilities determine their probability of propagating their genes.

-You don't need the entire truth to know part of it. Even assuming a correspondence view of truth, I can know with absolute certainty that there are some truths which are "self-attesting". That is, they prove themselves to be true. These include things like the law of identity (A=A) and the law of non-contradiction (A ¬= ¬A). This is the case in all worldviews. How I come to apprehend these inherent facts and that I do is irrelevant to their truth.

-Assuming this actually posed a problem for naturalism (it doesn't), I could just as easily think of a state of affairs for a theist wherein they too cannot be certain that (generously assuming God exists) their cognitive faculties are not the result of a cosmic trickster.


Does the mere fact that I could throw some aspect of one's cognitive ability actually throw the entire thing into doubt? Or does it reveal that at base, all worldviews have to take certain assumptions as axiomatic truths from which to progress? To say otherwise is contradictory to various necessary truths.

[Whateverist]

At the OP: never fear, even if rational naturalism is impossible I think you'll find biological naturalism not only possible but unavoidable.

[MindForgedManacle]

While he's better than William Lane Craig, I think Plantinga has a habit of straw manning atheists and naturalists. I also have an inkling he said that atheists are people who like to sin a lot and have damaged cognitive faculties, which if he said either makes any respect I might've had for his ability as a thinker irrelevant. Fucker.

[Cheerful Charlie]

for my first post actually arguing for something, I decided to do something new. i'm using an argument I haven't seen here yet and one I think is very interesting. if you would like more details on it, it is an argument developed by Alvin Plantinga in my own reiteration.

instead of arguing a proposition is true or false, this argument concludes that it is impossible to rationally accept naturalism. here are the reasons for this:
1. P1 if naturalism is true, then there is nothing beyond our physical selves.
2. P2 evolution is a process that operates with the goal of survivability.
3. C1 our cognitive functions have come into being by the process of evolution- from P1&P2
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.
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.

conclusion: it is impossible to rationally believe in naturalism. the very concept of naturalism entails the possibility of our cognitive faculties being unable to reason truth, which includes all truths including naturalism itself. it's self defeating. and before someone asks why this doesn't apply to religion like Christianity, the answer is P1 isn't a claim of Christianity and in fact is inconsistent with Christianity. if P1 is false, then C1 doesn't logically follow. a Christian can simply claim their cognitive faculties are indicators of truth by the intent of our designer.

Many people cannot in fact reason about abstract things competently. This would suggest that evolution is in fact true, and naturalism is true. Those who learn to reason about the world well, such as scientists, usually have to be taught how to successfully do so.

Our evolved reason allows us to think about complex things successfully and understand scientific truths. It is like our fingers that were not evolved to play the piano, but we can, some people very well, while apes never learn to do that.

Plantinga is just wrong and is simple minded here. He is not thinking well.


Does God create the laws and rules and logic of the Universe, Descartes tells us that God does, he makes 2 + 2 = 4 and could if he desired make 2 + 2 = 5 if God so desired. God is defined as good, perfectly good. He has good nature and free will and freely of his own free will does only good. Such a God would freely eliminate all moral evil if he can. To do so is easy, he just creates man with a god-like free will and a God-like good nature. Any reason we might offer why that cannot be done is false because a God that creates all the rules
and laws and metaphysical necessities of the Universe can eliminate anything that logically prevents him from doing this.

There is moral evil, that God above and creator of the logic of the Universe does nor exist, obviously.

Thus the rules, laws, metaphysical necessities of the Universe, the logic of the Universe is outside and beyond God's control or creation. God is not beyond and above logic, there is no super-logic for God or we would live in a very different Universe than we do in fact live in.

Thus we establish logically the naturalism is in fact the basic foundation of reality, not some sort of supernatural God. If we try to think of the most powerful God imaginable, we are forced to concede naturalism exists and is more powerful than any such hypothetical God. If we abandon such a God, we conceded Naturalism exists and is responsible for the logic of the Universe.

Plantinga is simply wrong. And is easily demonstrated to be wrong.

...

[bennyboy]

Thus we establish logically the naturalism is in fact the basic foundation of reality, not some sort of supernatural God.

I don't accept this dilemma: "Not God, therefore as it seems." There are other possibilities that are neither religious nor naturalistic. Or, to put it another way, what constitutes actual nature may not be what it seems to us.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Thus we establish logically the naturalism is in fact the basic foundation of reality, not some sort of supernatural God.

I don't accept this dilemma: "Not God, therefore as it seems." There are other possibilities that are neither religious nor naturalistic. Or, to put it another way, what constitutes actual nature may not be what it seems to us.

Plantinga is most certainly a Christian and when he writes of God, he writes about the Christian God, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creator of all. This God which he claims is above naturalism, and creates nature is as I demonstrated, simply impossible. Naturalism is above and beyond any possible, omni-everything creator God.

You may wish to consider other possibilities, but I am specifically aiming at Plantinga's arguments against naturalism in favor of the standard OEC God of Christianity et al.

Plantinga's basic assumptions about the nature and attributes of God create a self contradictory and self defeating hypothesis.


...

[TheBeardedDude]

for my first post actually arguing for something, I decided to do something new. i'm using an argument I haven't seen here yet and one I think is very interesting. if you would like more details on it, it is an argument developed by Alvin Plantinga in my own reiteration.

instead of arguing a proposition is true or false, this argument concludes that it is impossible to rationally accept naturalism. here are the reasons for this:
1. P1 if naturalism is true, then there is nothing beyond our physical selves.
2. P2 evolution is a process that operates with the goal of survivability.
3. C1 our cognitive functions have come into being by the process of evolution- from P1&P2
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.
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.

conclusion: it is impossible to rationally believe in naturalism. the very concept of naturalism entails the possibility of our cognitive faculties being unable to reason truth, which includes all truths including naturalism itself. it's self defeating. and before someone asks why this doesn't apply to religion like Christianity, the answer is P1 isn't a claim of Christianity and in fact is inconsistent with Christianity. if P1 is false, then C1 doesn't logically follow. a Christian can simply claim their cognitive faculties are indicators of truth by the intent of our designer.

extra notes- before i'm misunderstood I want to make it clear, this argument is not formulated to prove naturalism is false. I hope to see no one who interprets it that way. it is only meant to show how it is impossible to rationally believe it for the reasons in the argument. it shows that presupposing naturalism is true entails the best probability for all our beliefs to be correct is 50/50 since we can't know if our cognitive faculties are in fact indicators of truth. that is it.

"If naturalism is true, then nothing exists beyond our physical selves."
This seems almost certainly true, so I am with you so far.

"Evolution is a process that operates with the goal of survivability."
No. Evolution is indeed a process with numerous mechanisms, but to say it has a "goal" is to misunderstand it. You wouldn't describe a chemical process as having a "goal". That is because it is a dynamic process of numerous variables that does not operate in a linear trajectory. It is the same with evolution. It is a process that does not operate with any degree of consciousness. It does not move in a uniform trajectory towards any endpoint. We can look at it in hindsight and describe the trajectory it did take, but this has no bearing on the future direction (that is to say that evolution does not have 'memory' in the statistical sense. Implying that prior evolutionary trajectories have no bearing on future ones. One need only look at organisms like turtles to see this very clearly. Turtle ancestors (amphibians) were largely water-restricted, then went to land, then back to water, back to land, and some have made that trek back to water again.)


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

Cognitive function is a byproduct evolution as it has proved evolutionarily advantageous.

" 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."

It did not originate for a purpose. This presupposes that evolution acts consciously, it doesn't. Organisms have adapted cognitive function into aiding in survival. It has no purpose other than how a lineage utilizes it once they already have it. Your fingers didn't evolve for typing, you adapted them to it.

" 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."

We call that "Solipsism" and you are about 2,000 years late to the party. You didn't need any of the other/prior points to make that by the way.

And this final point necessarily applies to all ideologies. So yes, this applies to Christians and Muslims, etc. The difference between them and atheists? They are making a claim about truth and knowledge that implies it is knowable by them through a god because that God is supposed to know all. Ergo, solipsism indicates that isn't true and puts them in the boat of having an untestable and unverifiable claim based on no evidence whatsoever.

[Cheerful Charlie]

"If naturalism is true, then nothing exists beyond our physical selves."
This seems almost certainly true, so I am with you so far.

.....
.

" 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."

We call that "Solipsism" and you are about 2,000 years late to the party. You didn't need any of the other/prior points to make that by the way.

If the theist argument is we cannot rely on evolved minds for truth, then it follows evolved minds cannot think truthfully about theology, God or religion.

Which might explain why there are so many contradictory religions, gods, sects and cults.