tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6743002626891277091..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Plantinga on Evolution vs. NaturalismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23659917360351526022008-08-15T12:41:00.000-07:002008-08-15T12:41:00.000-07:00Sorry, I am the persdon who posted as "Paul" on th...Sorry, I am the persdon who posted as "Paul" on the prosblogian, for a memory jogger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24872458058342905222008-08-15T12:40:00.000-07:002008-08-15T12:40:00.000-07:00Mike,"In any case, a decent, unrebutted objection ...Mike,<BR/><BR/>"In any case, a decent, unrebutted objection to the evolutionary argument is not easy to come by. Plantinga has addressed several criticisms"<BR/><BR/>You and I went back and forth on Prosblogian a few weeks back on the EAAN.<BR/><BR/>You presented an "objection" to EAAN. I offered a (several) rebuttal(s).Do you take it that I rebutted it, or have you found a rebuttal to what you presented somehwere else? If so could you paste a link in?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58566077321885124252008-08-14T12:07:00.000-07:002008-08-14T12:07:00.000-07:00Mr Carr,Thankyou for this response. As per my prev...Mr Carr,<BR/><BR/>Thankyou for this response. As per my previous comment, I now consider this conversation over.<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31497390489690519182008-08-14T01:16:00.000-07:002008-08-14T01:16:00.000-07:00I have already , twice, pointed out that sceptics ...I have already , twice, pointed out that sceptics *agree* with Plantinga, in so much as human beings may have developed brains through evolution that are not capable of formulating the correct theory about evolution.<BR/><BR/>There was an article in the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer on this very subject.<BR/><BR/>Plantinga's conclusion is that sceptics should be sceptical about their thought processes.<BR/><BR/>Do you think I disagree?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80745043058206672802008-08-14T00:37:00.000-07:002008-08-14T00:37:00.000-07:00Steven Carr,I don't think I'd go as far as some of...Steven Carr,<BR/><BR/>I don't think I'd go as far as some of the others here and claim that you are an evil genius. I'd just like to point out that you still haven't denied a premise that that you are still confusing a lack of beliefs with the presence of false beliefs. It's a simple distinction and I've pointed it out multiple times now. If your next post is not a denial of a premise or inference (with reference to the numbered premises in my argument) I shall consider this conversation over.<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82265899356746540122008-08-13T22:41:00.000-07:002008-08-13T22:41:00.000-07:00Carr proves that the fool has said in his heart th...Carr proves that the fool has said in his heart there is no God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23248876876607866732008-08-13T22:32:00.000-07:002008-08-13T22:32:00.000-07:00It seems personal abuse is the only way people can...It seems personal abuse is the only way people can defend Plantinga's claim people can look at green grass and believe it is blue, and that therefore people are not rational to ask for evidence that God made their eyes.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps somebody can explain why naturalism is in doubt, simply because evolution has produce some colour-blind people who cannot see colours correctly.<BR/><BR/>The logic seems to be :- <BR/>1) As far as natural selection is concerned, people can survive even if they see wrong colours<BR/>2) Therefore, naturalists should doubt their belief about colours<BR/>3) Therefore, sceptics should doubt all their beliefs.<BR/><BR/>What a bizarre argument!<BR/><BR/>And with no conclusion other than that sceptics are right not to believe anything on faith.<BR/><BR/>While Plantinga claims theists are rational in believing God made their eyes, despite no evidence for it, and despite the fact that Plantinga knows his eyes produce false images.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8147888316695020012008-08-13T22:20:00.000-07:002008-08-13T22:20:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72599727217952979002008-08-13T15:19:00.000-07:002008-08-13T15:19:00.000-07:00As someone who has debated Carr in years past on o...As someone who has debated Carr in years past on other boards, I can honestly say that every minute you spend sincerely attempting to answer his questions is a minute you'll never get back. If I were being even more honest, I'd say that every minute you spend arguing with Carr is a victory for him. Allow me to explain.<BR/><BR/>I used to think Carr was just thick, but now I believe he's a Satanic genius whose method of thwarting the work of Christian apologists, theologians, and philosophers by wasting as much of their time as they will allow him to. Trust me, this way of viewing Carr's responses explains much more than the assumption that he's a reasonably intelligent person of good will. I've seen him around on scores of atheist and theist forums for more than a decade, and judging from his responses, one would think he hasn't learned anything in all that time.<BR/><BR/>I sincerely believe that no one can get that much wrong about every argument he encounters unless he's doing it on purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41898569105087613232008-08-13T14:18:00.000-07:002008-08-13T14:18:00.000-07:00LOVELLEvolution is the explanation for the origin ...LOVELL<BR/>Evolution is the explanation for the origin of our cognitive faculties [assumed for reductio]<BR/>(3) If (1)&(2) are true, then I have an undercutting defeater for all my beliefs which result from the cognitive faculties explained by evolution<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I see.<BR/><BR/>So if you have forgotten 99.99% of all the details of your life, then you have a defeater for your belief that the remaining 0.01% has been remembered accurately? <BR/><BR/>Many scientific beliefs were not produced only by cognitive faculties produced by evolution, just as many skyscrapers were not built using only muscle power produced by evolution.<BR/><BR/>Our cognitive faculties are really bad for seeing hundreds of millions of miles away.<BR/><BR/>That is why we built telescopes.<BR/><BR/>Really,Plantinga's arguments have so many holes it is comical, and richly entertaining.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80828473540077753162008-08-13T14:08:00.000-07:002008-08-13T14:08:00.000-07:00As I pointed out already, sceptics are well aware ...As I pointed out already, sceptics are well aware of the fact that human brains are not perfect and so we might not have the correct theory about evolution.<BR/><BR/>That was discussed and conceded in the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer.<BR/><BR/>So what is Plantinga's point, other than to spend a lot of words telling sceptics what they know already?<BR/><BR/>It is not irrational to believe in the best theory we have,just as it was not irrational for Newton to believe in absolute space and time.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48293871350334705782008-08-13T14:02:00.000-07:002008-08-13T14:02:00.000-07:00LOVELLAs I pointed out earlier today, the point is...LOVELL<BR/>As I pointed out earlier today, the point is not the number of beliefs formed it's the truth (or likelihood of truth) of the beliefs which are formed.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>That is a great way to defend the reliability of Plantinga's memory.<BR/><BR/>Simply claim it doesn't work at all almost all of the time,and so never goes wrong.<BR/><BR/>Amazing!Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57253309384997772502008-08-13T13:58:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:58:00.000-07:00LOVELLHe thinks one of the things we might be able...LOVELL<BR/>He thinks one of the things we might be able to forecast from naturalism is the widespread falshood of most of our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>This is only made false, because you deny that Plantinga's memory should be expected to produce ANY beliefs for 99.9% of the details of Plantinga's life.<BR/><BR/>If Plantinga thinks his god-given eyes produce true beliefs, why does he wear glasses?<BR/><BR/>If his memory is so reliable and produces true beliefs, why does it fail utterly most of the time,to the extent that Plantinga doesn't even attempt to remember what he ate for every meal in his life?<BR/><BR/>Plantinga's argument is that most lottery tickets are losers,so nobody can reasonably believe they have won the lottery.<BR/><BR/>This is a non sequitor.<BR/><BR/>If evolution predicts that it is very unlikely that any given species will develop sophisticated reasoning, then it is not true that it is likely that no species will develop sophisticated reasoning.<BR/><BR/>Of course,Plantinga's world view suffers from these problems in huge measure, as it predicts that supernatural beings will attack Plantinga's perception.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1776365014136465392008-08-13T13:50:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:50:00.000-07:00Mr Carr,Okay, I'm going to give up for the evening...Mr Carr,<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'm going to give up for the evening after this one. First, you still haven't denied a premise or an inference. Do you have a problem doing this? If no premise or inference is denied, then the argument and it's conclusion stands.<BR/><BR/>When you say "Plantinga himself would laugh at the idea that because he has forgotten 99.9% of the details of his life,then he should not trust his memory of his telephone number."<BR/><BR/>I agree. But it's irrelevant. As I pointed out earlier today, the point is not the number of beliefs formed it's the truth (or likelihood of truth) of the beliefs which are formed.<BR/><BR/>This is much too easy. ;-)<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7688309914583890592008-08-13T13:45:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:45:00.000-07:00Let me add to my last comment.Plantinga doesn't re...Let me add to my last comment.<BR/><BR/>Plantinga doesn't reason as per this quote from Carr:<BR/>"Evolution predicts that the chances of someone having perfect eyes are pretty small. And we can see that evolution predicts what we find to be true in the world today.Therefore, we cannot believe in evolution."<BR/><BR/>In particular the claim "And we can see that evolution predicts what we find to be true in the world today" is no part of Plantinga's argument.<BR/><BR/>He is precisely denying that claim. He thinks one of the things we might be able to forecast from naturalism is the widespread falshood of most of our beliefs. But he denies rather than affirms that widespread falsehood, and invites the naturalist to accept it, and then also the endorse scepticism including scepticism about naturalism (but he's also happy for the naturalist to reject that conclusion, but only if they also reject the naturalistic evolutionary hypothesis which led to that conclusion).<BR/><BR/>Also: Big brains is no guarantee of good brains, at least not in this respect.<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82328570141300465882008-08-13T13:41:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:41:00.000-07:00STEVEIf the prediction successful to the degree th...STEVE<BR/><BR/>If the prediction successful to the degree that Plantinga is suggesting then most of what you believe is false.<BR/><BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>So how do you get from 'Most of what I believe is false', to 'I cannot trust any of my beliefs'?<BR/><BR/>Plantinga never bothers with that little step,does he?<BR/><BR/>Why should he?<BR/><BR/>Plantinga himself would laugh at the idea that because he has forgotten 99.9% of the details of his life,then he should not trust his memory of his telephone number.<BR/><BR/>This is too easy....Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22249456986464132512008-08-13T13:37:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:37:00.000-07:00PLANTINGA Now according to traditional Christian (...PLANTINGA<BR/> Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God. This means, among other things, that he created us with the capacity for achieving knowledge ...<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>This is the sum total of Plantinga's proof that he can trust his perception.<BR/><BR/>If a species is made in the image of God, then it can acquire knowledge.<BR/><BR/>So how does my dog recognise me? How does it know I am its owner?<BR/><BR/>Are dogs made in the image of god?<BR/><BR/>So what is Plantinga's argument?<BR/><BR/>If a species is made in the image of god ,it can acquire knowlege, because it was made in the image of god. <BR/><BR/>If a species is not made in the image of god ,it can still acquire knowlege, because....?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Plantinga's arguments are such an embarrassment to Christianity, and its claims that their thinkers are so superior to atheists, that I just love commenting on them.<BR/><BR/>Not only does the Emperor wear New Clothes, but his tailors are rubbish too....Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19836695892158118902008-08-13T13:36:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:36:00.000-07:00Mr Carr,If the prediction successful to the degree...Mr Carr,<BR/><BR/>If the prediction successful to the degree that Plantinga is suggesting then most of what you believe is false. It would be a mere matter of luck if your belief in Naturalism or evolution is true.<BR/><BR/>Please deny a premise or an inference, and give clear reasons why you deny it. It doesn't matter how hard you try, it will always be impossible to rebut an argument by changing the subject.<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70762921800633562612008-08-13T13:24:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:24:00.000-07:00LOVELL(3.2) Evolutionary naturalism in it's explan...LOVELL<BR/>(3.2) Evolutionary naturalism in it's explanation of the origin of those faculties doesn't make it likely that those faculties should be reliable.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>That is why Plantinga wears glasses.<BR/><BR/>His eyes are not as reliable as they should be.<BR/><BR/>Plantinga is living proof that you cannot refute evolution by claiming it would produce unreliable eyes, because Plantinga demonstrates on a daily basis that eyes are unreliable.<BR/><BR/>What are the chances of someone having perfect eyes?<BR/><BR/>Pretty small.<BR/><BR/>Ah ha! says Plantinga. Evolution predicts that the chances of someone having perfect eyes are pretty small. And we can see that evolution predicts what we find to be true in the world today.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, we cannot believe in evolution.<BR/><BR/>You have to admire Plantinga's chutzpah. If evolutionary theory produces correct predictions, then it is false.<BR/><BR/>There are billions of species that have lived.<BR/><BR/>Only Homo sapiens have developed big brains.<BR/><BR/>Therefore , the chances of a species developing big brains are billions to one.<BR/><BR/>So how do you refute evolution by claiming the chances of developing big brains is small, when that is a successful prediction of evolution?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68773358177612073642008-08-13T13:16:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:16:00.000-07:00What is Plantinga's argument?Is Plantinga claiming...What is Plantinga's argument?<BR/><BR/>Is Plantinga claiming that ,if our eyes have developed through natural selection, we are not entitled to believe that grass is green, although we can see that grass is green, because we would survive just as well if we believed that grass was blue?<BR/><BR/>I am entitled to believe that grass is green, because I can see that grass is green.<BR/><BR/>If somebody claims that I would get along fine with a belief that grass is blue, then I am simply puzzled as to why that person thinks he is intelligent. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Try as I might, I cannot make head or tail of Plantinga's words.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Perhaps this is why scientists just ignore him.<BR/><BR/>They are too busy researching our cognitive faculties to worry about such weird arguments as Plantinga's.<BR/><BR/>Please explain why Plantinga can go from 'We are made in the image of God' to 'Therefore our cognitive faculties are reliable', when the guy just doesn't believe his god-given cognitive faculties are as reliable as they should be.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54979926111028928992008-08-13T13:05:00.000-07:002008-08-13T13:05:00.000-07:00Steven Carr,Carr: "The question remains unans...Steven Carr,<BR/><BR/>Carr: "The question remains unanswered".<BR/><BR/>Me: What question exactly?<BR/><BR/>Let me present an abbreviated version of Plantinga's argument. You can then attempt to locate your objection relative to the argument.<BR/><BR/>(1) Naturalism is true [assumed for reductio]<BR/>(2) Evolution is the explanation for the origin of our cognitive faculties [assumed for reductio]<BR/>(3) If (1)&(2) are true, then I have an undercutting defeater for all my beliefs which result from the cognitive faculties explained by evolution<BR/>(4) Therefore, if (1)&(2) are true, then I have no justified beliefs<BR/>(5) Therefore (1)&(2) entail widespread scepticism, including scepticism about (1)&(2).<BR/>(6) Therefore we ought disbelieve (1)&(2).<BR/><BR/>The argument is valid. The interesting questions are about (3), I think. Allow me to formulate a Plantinga-esque argument for (3).<BR/><BR/>(3.1) If I have some belief about the provenance of my cognative faculties which explains the detailed working of those faculties but doesn't make it likely that those faculties should be reliable (that is that the beliefs they produce, if any, should in general be true), then that belief about the provenance of my cognative faculties is an undercutting defeater for any belief which results from the faculties which I believe to have that provenance.<BR/>(3.2) Evolutionary naturalism in it's explanation of the origin of those faculties doesn't make it likely that those faculties should be reliable.<BR/>(3.3) Therefore, (3) is true.<BR/><BR/>Now you might object to either (3.1) or (3.2), and I think there are some sensible objections out there which are worthy of discussion. Some people seem to have been making such objections. But which premise or inference is denied in the objection from Plantinga's lack of omniscience and need to wear glasses?<BR/><BR/>If you are entitled to ask what Plantinga's argument is, I think I am certainly entitled to ask you what your objection is.<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84888485229918943362008-08-13T12:12:00.000-07:002008-08-13T12:12:00.000-07:00So Plantinga's memory is reliable because it blank...So Plantinga's memory is reliable because it blanks out totally for 99.9% of the details of his past life, rather than giving him 'false beliefs'?<BR/><BR/>The question remains unanswered.<BR/><BR/>If Plantinga believes his allege god has given him reliable cognitive faculties of memory and perception, why does he wear glasses and keep diaries?<BR/><BR/>'What we don't do all the time is misremember things?'<BR/><BR/>Is this because there are no supernatural beings attacking our memnory and reasoning?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77620767662967521992008-08-13T11:44:00.000-07:002008-08-13T11:44:00.000-07:00Mark Frank has explained things very well.I'll jus...Mark Frank has explained things very well.<BR/><BR/>I'll just add that the ID sympathizers I've spoken to fail to understand a certain aspect of evolutionary biology. They all assume that there's one, static environment. This is likely where people like Plantinga are getting the absurd idea that a species can adapt to have false beliefs and be more successful than a species that has a correct belief-producing mechanism.<BR/><BR/>In reality, even if there was only one species of clay-eating bacteria on the planet, there would be thousands of environmental niches. And as populations change and as species migrate, the environment changes and new niches are formed. <BR/><BR/>This means that the rules for survival are continually changing in time and space. Hence, there's a very strong survival advantage to a species that can learn the rules of these new environments within a single lifetime. You cannot fake this ability to adapt to new rules with a collection of false and arbitrary beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Then there's the issue of inference. Do we really think it likely that a mind will possess systematically false beliefs, and statistically infer from the false beliefs the correct survival response? The only way I can see this happening is if the mind systematically infers negated beliefs, and systematically makes inverted inferences from them. And a man who is wrong 100% of the time is the smartest man in the universe.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59419864859596485642008-08-13T09:15:00.000-07:002008-08-13T09:15:00.000-07:00Steven Carr,I can't help but think you are being d...Steven Carr,<BR/><BR/>I can't help but think you are being deliberately uncharitable in your reading of me and of Plantinga.<BR/><BR/>He surely admits that we forget things, lots of things. What we don't do all the time is "misremember things", it is not the lack of beliefs which would be problematic is the presence of false beliefs. He uses diaries because he is aware that he forgets certain things. The role is not to correct his beliefs about the past, but to maintain and even recreate them.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that there aren't good objections to the EAN, but you can't beat it with every stick that your hand can find. This is a terrible line of objection based on systematic misreadings of his argument.<BR/><BR/>I hope this clears up that objection. When I get some time I might look at some of the better ones posted here. Some of them might even be your own.<BR/><BR/>SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19624540957507003142008-08-13T08:25:00.000-07:002008-08-13T08:25:00.000-07:00All I can do is quote Plantinga.''It begins from c...All I can do is quote Plantinga.<BR/><BR/><BR/>''It begins from certain doubts about the reliability of our cognitive faculties, where, roughly, a cognitive faculty--memory, perception, reason--is reliable if the great bulk of its deliverances are true.'<BR/><BR/>So why are the great bulk of Plantinga's memories now blank?<BR/><BR/>Plantinga claims he has such a reliable memory that the great bulk of questions you might ask of it return true beliefs.<BR/><BR/>This is very boastful. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps Plantinga has forgotten more philosophy than I will ever know, but if he has forgotten a lot, then his memory is not something which delivers the 'great bulk of the time'<BR/><BR/>So if Plantinga's god-given cognitive faculties like memory and perception are so reliable, why does he need diaries and glasses?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Perhaps because Plantinga knows his memory and perception are reliable enough for him to survive on a day to day basis (praise be to evolution), but that these god-given cognitive faculties are not as reliable as he would wish.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.com