Lewis mentions Balfour’s Theism
and Humanism in one place, but the closest parallel to the argument Lewis used
in Miracles comes in Lewis’s book The Foundations of Belief, originally
published in 1895.
Balfour’s argument derives four
propositions from what he calls the “naturalistic creed.”
1) My
beliefs, in so far as they are the result of reasoning at all, are founded on
premises produced in the last resort by the “collision of atoms.”
2) Atoms,
having no prejudices in favour of truth, are as likely to turn out wrong
premises as right ones; nay, more likely, inasmuch as truth is one and error
manifold.
3) My
premises, therefore, in the first place, and my conclusions in the second, are
certainly untrustworthy, and probably false. Their falsity, moreover, is of a
kind which cannot be remedied; for any attempt to correct it must start from
premises not suffering from the same defect. But no such premises exist.
4) Therefore,
again, my opinion about the original causes which produced my premises, as it
is an inference from them, partakes of the same weakness; so that I cannot
either accurately doubt my own certainties or be certain of my own doubts.
In
other words, if naturalism, then skepticism. But if skepticism is true, then we
have to be as skeptical about naturalism as we are about anything else
Importantly,
Balfour considers the Evolutionary Rebuttal to this argument. Evolutionary
biology “establishes the existence of a machinery which, irrational thought it
may be, does really bend gradually, and in the long run, to produce true
opinions rather than false.” That machinery, of course, is natural selection.
This brings the organism into more and more perfect harmony with the
environment.
But
he finds the Evolutionary Rebuttal to be less than adequate. He writes:
But what an utterly inadequate basis
for speculation is here. We are to suppose that the powers that evolved in primitive
man and his animal progenitors in order that they might kill with success and
marry in security, are on that account, sufficient to explore the secrets of
the universe. We are to suppose that the fundamental beliefs on which these powers
of reasoning are to be exercised reflect with sufficient precision remote
aspects of reality, though they were produced in the main by physiological processes
which date from a stage of development when the only curiosities that had to be
satisfied were those of fear and those of hunger.
He
concludes:
I
do not think believe that any escape from these perplexities is possible unless
we are prepared to bring to the study of the world the presupposition that it was
the work of a rational Being, who made it intelligible, and at the same time made us, in
however feeble a fashion, able to understand it.
This is the Foundatons of Bellief, available in its entirety on Google Books.
The passages I quoted from start on p. 306.
9 comments:
This doesn't make a positive argument from reason. It just says that the author doesn't like the result of assuming naturalism.
The result of assuming naturalism, according to Balfour, is that we cannot know taht naturalism, or anything else, is true. Further, a naturalist cannot believe that it is true that they formed their belief based on evidence. The may think they did, but given what naturalism asserts about the world, it didn't happen. Science, as an objective method for discovering the truth, does not exist.
Victor,
Again, you're just listing consequences you don't like. None of them actually supports the argument from reason.
If you are asserting naturalism as something you just happen to beleive, then naturalism doesn't defeast itself. Every naturalist I have ever met thinks naturalism is the reeasonable result of viewing the world in scientific terms. If the conditional "If naturalism, then no science" is accepted, then this purported rational support for naturalism is undermined. Naturalists use the argument fron evil, which they would not be able to do if they were right abot the universe.
Consider this argument.
1. If we reason, then naturalism is false.
2. We reason.
Therefore, naturalism si false.
You wnat to reject the argument by sayiing that 2 is just a personal preference? Really?
I accepted "My premises, therefore, in the first place, and my conclusions in the second, are certainly untrustworthy, and probably false. Their falsity, moreover, is of a kind which cannot be remedied; ... In other words, if naturalism, then skepticism. But if skepticism is true, then we have to be as skeptical about naturalism as we are about anything else". I am just as skeptical of naturalism as any other ontological position. I might have it wrong; it's just my best understanding of the world today.
By contrast, I reject "If we reason, then naturalism is false". There is a missing phrase in your sentence that you are relying upon; you seem to mean something like 'If we can reason with absolute certainty, then naturalism is false'. I would agree with the latter statement, but deny we can reason with absolute certainty.
We don't have any assurance that the laws of logic (like the reducito ad absurdum represented by the argument from evil) form an accurate understanding of the very complex world that we inhabit. We use them to simplify our world so we can talk in generalities. I use them with skepticism, but I have no better tools to use.
Victor,
" Atoms, having no prejudices in favour of truth, are as likely to turn out wrong premises as right ones; nay, more likely, inasmuch as truth is one and error manifold."
False. This assumes atoms are just bouncing around randomly putting out scrambled utterances that are disconnected from any association with an external reality.
In fact, we are connected to an external reality. That external reality is the grounding of truth. Organisms that perceive external reality is some fairly accurate way have a reproductive advantage.
"My premises, therefore, in the first place, and my conclusions in the second, are certainly untrustworthy, and probably false."
How absurd. Balfour makes himself a clueless fool, bumbling through life unable to differentiate facts of his environment from fictions. Animals in that condition do not reproduce, they quickly die.
"But no such premises exist."
No such premises exist in Balfour's absurdly limited knowledge set.
"But if skepticism is true, then we have to be as skeptical about naturalism as we are about anything else "
Yes, and that skepticism leads to study and confirmation. The whole of modern science provides vast mountains of confirmational evidence that naturalism is true.
"We are to suppose that the powers that evolved in primitive man and his animal progenitors in order that they might kill with success and marry in security, are on that account, sufficient to explore the secrets of the universe."
Cultural evolution. Apparently Balfour was not aware of his own education, how that vast body of knowledge was aquired, how he learned as a child, and what sort of person he would have grown up to be absent that education in a hunter gatherer band.
"We are to suppose that the fundamental beliefs on which these powers of reasoning are to be exercised reflect with sufficient precision remote aspects of reality, though they were produced in the main by physiological processes which date from a stage of development when the only curiosities that had to be satisfied were those of fear and those of hunger."
Balfour, among his many obvious failings of ignorance, is ignorant of how much reasoning is required to make stone tools, to make hunting weapons, and to communicate with members of the group.
"The passages I quoted from start on p. 306. "
Why bother? The "argument" of Balfour is junk, obviously.
Stardusty: You're an atheist, so you believe that theism is out of touch with reality. But evolution will select for beliefs in touch with reality, which is why we can trust our epistemic mechanisms even if materialism is true. OK, so why are there so many more theists running around than atheists? Shouldn't they have been weeded out long ago by evolution, if it is so great at getting us the truth?
Victor Reppert,
Stardusty: You're an atheist, so you believe that theism is out of touch with reality. But evolution will select for beliefs in touch with reality, which is why we can trust our epistemic mechanisms even if materialism is true. OK, so why are there so many more theists running around than atheists? Shouldn't they have been weeded out long ago by evolution, if it is so great at getting us the truth?
Primates and guinea pigs don't produce Vitamin C because of a genetic anomalies. There is no benefit to this inability. However, because Vitamin C is plentiful, we survived as populations anyhow. Evolution does not weed out eveery error, only those that prevent us from breeding.
Victor,
"But evolution will select for beliefs in touch with reality,"
Only when there is selection pressure for determining truth, such as determining the truth of the immediate environment.
You can believe the stars are fire dots or gods or luminescent insects, it doesn't much matter for your reproductive advantage or disadvantage.
"OK, so why are there so many more theists running around than atheists?"
Because it doesn't much matter what you believe about the origin of the universe, or where you go after you die. You can make up any old story you want and it will not affect your reproductive advantage or disadvantage much.
That being the case, one would expect people all over the world to make up all kinds of mutually exclusive stories about things that do not much affect survival and preproduction, which is just what we find.
Plantinga's evolutionary "argument" is shallow and simplistic to the point of absurdity.
Evolution provides a powerful selection pressure toward truth in subjects that are important to survival to reproduction.
Sound reasoning is very helpful for making tools, fire, shelter, hunting, gathering and navigating a hostile environment.
But, you can make up all kinds of stories about gods and spirits and how the universe came to be and what will happen when you die and most such stories just don't matter very much for reproduction so people have been telling such tales for many thousands of years.
Post a Comment