Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Belief?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Mark Frank: “Evolution does not select for specific beliefs.”

Of course not Mark, if by “evolution” you mean materialist Neo-Darwinian evolution. This is the case for the simple reason that if materialism is true, “beliefs” as they are commonly understood do not exist. They are an illusion, mere “folk psychology” according to Dennett.

Comments
StephenB:
First, you say that no evolutionary model can provide assurance of cognitive reliability.
No, I didn't.
Then you say that some can, but you aren’t sure which ones are capable of it.
No, I didn't. Stephen, there's no point in continuing this discussion if you can't be bothered to read for comprehension -- or are unable to.keith s
March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
SB I think there is some confusion between us at to what is being disputed.  My case is that this argument: 1 ) Evolution would give us reasoning capacities that increase fitness 2 ) There is no reason to suppose such reasoning capacities would lead us to true beliefs 3 ) Therefore if evolution is true there is no reason to suppose our beliefs about evolution are true which is contradictory Is invalid even if you accept 1) and 2 ). I think you have conceded this because you have conceded that we can verify our reasoning abilities lead us to true beliefs independently of how we got those reasoning beliefs (correspondence with the logic of reality). Therefore 3 does not follow from 2. There is a different argument which goes something like this. 1) Our reasoning capacities correspond to reality 2) There is no reason why evolution should produce such reasoning capacities 3) A omnipotent designer who wanted to produce such reasoning capacities would produce them I would certainly dispute 2 ) – it seems to me that having reasoning capacities that mostly produce true belief has immense fitness advantages. But anyway it is the classic  God of the Gaps argument.  I can’t see why evolution can do it. An omnipotent designer could do it. Therefore, it must have been an omnipotent designer.Mark Frank
March 17, 2015
March
03
Mar
17
17
2015
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
KeithS
No. If our cognition evolved, we can’t be sure that it is reliable, because cognition is reliable in some possible evolutionary models but not in others, and we can’t be certain which of the models, if any, is correct.
First, you say that no evolutionary model can provide assurance of cognitive reliability. Then you say that some can, but you aren't sure which ones are capable of it. This is really rather bizarre. How do you know that any model can achieve it if you can't specify which one it is or explain how it could achieve the task, especially after having said that no model can do it?
No, you haven’t. [demonstrated cognitive reliability] You’ve merely told us that you think that there is a correspondence between our internal logic and the logic of the external world.
That isn't true. I have demonstrated it several times. I wrote this @57
I am now showing that our knowledge is, in fact, reliable. By virtue of our own experience, we know that our mental logic is in correspondence with the logical order of the real world: A Internal logic–-if it rains, then the streets will get wet. B External order–-when it rains, the streets always get wet. [A] corresponds with [B] and we know that it corresponds. Do you have any doubts about that correspondence? If they did not correspond, we could not make the distinction between a valid argument and a sound argument? I ask again: Do you know the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument? It appears that you do not.
You have not responded. Are you capable of answering these questions? Do you have any counter arguments?StephenB
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
StephenB:
I would challenge that claim. Which evolutionary models provide for an assurance of reliable cognitive capacities?
The ones that assume that evolution provides us with reliable cognition. Likewise, the theistic models that assure reliable cognition are the ones, like yours, that assume that God provides us with reliable cognition.
Earlier, you admitted that evolution cannot provide that assurance. Now you are changing your story.
No. If our cognition evolved, we can't be sure that it is reliable, because cognition is reliable in some possible evolutionary models but not in others, and we can't be certain which of the models, if any, is correct. Likewise, if our cognition was designed, we can't be sure that it is reliable, because cognition is reliable in some ID-based models but not in others, and we can't be certain which of the models, if any, is correct.
I didn’t “assume” anything. I have already proven that our internal logic (not my internal logic) does correspond to the logical order of the real world...
No, you haven't. You've merely told us that you think that there is a correspondence between our internal logic and the logic of the external world. Could you be wrong about that? Of course! If your cognition were unreliable to begin with, then you could easily reach the erroneous conclusion -- via your unreliable cognition -- that your cognition is reliable. You haven't ruled out this possibility, so you haven't proven that your cognition is reliable.
You are wrong. If our cognition is, in fact, reliable, and if my model holds that our cognition is reliable, then my model is obviously correct.
No, because there are many models, both theistic and atheistic, that take our cognition to be reliable. If you were able to show that our cognition is reliable, you would have succeeded only in showing that one of those models is correct. You certainly wouldn't have succeeded in showing that your particular model was correct.keith s
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
KeithS
a. You neglect the fact that there are competing evolutionary models in which cognition is (generally) reliable because evolution makes it that way.
I would challenge that claim. Which evolutionary models provide for an assurance of reliable cognitive capacities? How do they do it? What is your argument? Earlier, you admitted that evolution cannot provide that assurance. Now you are changing your story.
b. You assume that if your internal logic seems to correspond to the external world, then your cognition is reliable — neglecting the fact that if your cognition were unreliable, you could reach that same conclusion in error.
I didn't "assume" anything. I have already proven that our internal logic (not my internal logic) does correspond to the logical order of the real world, and I have provided a concrete example to make it clear. I could have provided many others. You are simply claiming that I am wrong without offering any supporting argument. Make your case.
c. Even if you could demonstrate that your cognition is reliable, that wouldn’t tell you that your personal theistic model is correct.
You are wrong. If our cognition is, in fact, reliable, and if my model holds that our cognition is reliable, then my model is obviously correct.StephenB
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Thus, Keith’s argument fails because not all interpretations of ID epistemology contain the flaw.
My argument doesn't require that cognition be unreliable in all versions of ID-based epistemology. Let's take a closer look at your reasoning, and then in a later comment, a closer look at mine. In essence, you are saying:
1. In my theistic model, cognition is reliable because God designs it that way. 2. In many other models, both theistic and atheistic, cognition is not reliable. 3. I can ignore those other models, because in my model, reliable cognition is a gift from God. 4. Furthermore, since my internal logic seems to match the logic of the external world, I know that my cognition is reliable. 5. Therefore I know that my theistic model is correct.
Can you spot the flaws? There are at least three. a. You neglect the fact that there are competing evolutionary models in which cognition is (generally) reliable because evolution makes it that way. b. You assume that if your internal logic seems to correspond to the external world, then your cognition is reliable -- neglecting the fact that if your cognition were unreliable, you could reach that same conclusion in error. c. Even if you could demonstrate that your cognition is reliable, that wouldn't tell you that your personal theistic model is correct. It would only tell you that the correct model, whether theistic or atheistic, would have to involve reliable cognition.keith s
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
SB: First, there is a difference between really having a capacity and mistakenly believing we have it. So, if the Creator really gives us the capacity, then we really have it. If we could be fooled into believing that we have the capacity when, in fact, we do not, then God did not give us that capacity after all. Mark Frank
That doesn’t explain how we can know whether he really gave it to us or was just fooling us.
I disagree. We know because, according to that model, we were given the gift to know. Or, to be more precise, we know because we were given a reality in which there is a correspondence between the knower and the thing that is known. SB: Second, we can demonstrate the fact that we do, in fact, have that capacity. The proof is in the fact that our internal logic corresponds with the logical order of the real world:
That’s fine. But that applies equally to evolutionary or materialistic explanations for our rationality.
I don’t think it does apply. There is no evolutionary or materialistic explanation for the correspondence between the subject (the knower) and the object (the thing that is known).
You may recall that this whole debate arose out of the argument: * Evolution would give us reasoning capacities that increase fitness * There is no reason to suppose such reasoning capacities would lead us to true beliefs * Therefore if evolution is true there is no reason to suppose our beliefs about evolution are true which is contradictory .
Yes.
Keiths pointed out that the same argument can be applied to ID explanations for our reasoning capacity (and it has the same flaw in it). * A designer would give us reasoning capacities that suit his/her intentions * There is no reason to suppose such reasoning capacities would lead us to true beliefs * Therefore if ID is true there is no reason to suppose our beliefs about ID are true which is contradictory
I think I have successfully refuted that claim. Let’s take each point one at a time: First, the designer’s “intention” is to provide cognitive capacities which include the assurance of reliability. Second, those same capacities are designed to lead us to true beliefs and to provide the assurance that they are, in fact, true. The assurance has been made possible by the created correspondence between the internal logic of the knower and the logical order of reality. Therefore, the Theistic interpretation of ID provides an assurance of reliability that the Darwinist model cannot.
You have put your finger on the flaw in both arguments. We have good reason to suppose our reasoning capacities lead to the truth (however they got there) because they correspond with the real world.
Yes, we have good reason to suppose that our reasoning capacities lead us to the truth (By the way, thank you for having the courtesy to study the argument. That courtesy sets you apart from the crowd). However, I would argue that this is also a good reason to reject Darwinistic epistemology and accept theistic epistemology, since theism explains the correspondence. Of course, Christian Theism is not identical with ID, but it is consistent with it. In other words, there is at least one interpretation of ID (Christian Theism) that can explain rationality. The Darwinist account cannot explain it at all. So while it may be the case that some interpretations of ID epistemology contain the same limitation as Darwinism, it is not the case that the Christian/Theism interpretation of ID epistemology contains that same flaw, which is the point of my demonstration. Thus, Keith’s argument fails because not all interpretations of ID epistemology contain the flaw.StephenB
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
SB #91  
First, there is a difference between really having a capacity and mistakenly believing we have it. So, if the Creator really gives us the capacity, then we really have it. If we could be fooled into believing that we have the capacity when, in fact, we do not, then God did not give us that capacity after all.
That doesn’t explain how we can know whether he really gave it to us or was just fooling us.
Second, we can demonstrate the fact that we do, in fact, have that capacity. The proof is in the fact that our internal logic corresponds with the logical order of the real world:
That’s fine. But that applies equally to evolutionary or materialistic explanations for our rationality. You may recall that this whole debate arose out of the argument: * Evolution would give us reasoning capacities that increase fitness * There is no reason to suppose such reasoning capacities would lead us to true beliefs * Therefore if evolution is true there is no reason to suppose our beliefs about evolution are true which is contradictory Keiths pointed out that the same argument can be applied to ID explanations for our reasoning capacity (and it has the same flaw in it). * A designer would give us reasoning capacities that suit his/her intentions  * There is no reason to suppose such reasoning capacities would lead us to true beliefs * Therefore if ID is true there is no reason to suppose our beliefs about ID are true which is contradictory You have put your finger on the flaw in both arguments. We have good reason to suppose our reasoning capacities lead to the truth (however they got there) because they correspond with the real world.Mark Frank
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Mark Frank
How can you tell the difference between: * A deity has given you the knowledge your cognitive capacities are reliable. * A deity has lead you to believe your cognitive capacities are reliable but in fact they are not.
I appreciate your clarity and conciseness. Again, we are discussing two questions: [a] Is it logically possible for the Creator to design cognition such that we can be certain of its reliability? [b] Can we, in fact, know that our cognitive capacities are reliable? The first question, which is metaphysical, pertains to the Darwinist/Theistic epistemology discussion. With Darwinism, we cannot have the assurance; with theism, we can. If God gives it to us, then we have it. That should be obvious. Keith's argument to the contrary fails. The second question, which is epistemological, can be answered in two ways: First, there is a difference between really having a capacity and mistakenly believing we have it. So, if the Creator really gives us the capacity, then we really have it. If we could be fooled into believing that we have the capacity when, in fact, we do not, then God did not give us that capacity after all. Second, we can demonstrate the fact that we do, in fact, have that capacity. The proof is in the fact that our internal logic corresponds with the logical order of the real world: –Internal logic: If it rains, the streets will get wet. –Logical order of the real world: When it rains, the streets always get wet. Our internal logic never contradicts the logical order of the real world, and vice versa. Notice also that the argument presented is both valid and sound. If correspondence (and our knowledge of it) wasn’t reliable, we could not make the distinction between a valid argument and a sound argument. Accordingly, correspondence is something that you can demonstrate for yourself by simply noting the difference among the various theistic models (and also the Darwinist model). You don't just believe they are different, you know they are different because you know your cognitive capacities are reliable.StephenB
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Reciprocating Bill
Stephen, this is hopelessly circular.
I am afraid you have missed something. It is obviously true that if I have been given the gift of assurance, then I have it. Why Keith would try to argue against that obvious point is a mystery. However, that is not the proof that we do, in fact, have assurance. The proof is in my demonstration that our internal logic corresponds to the logical order of the real world.StephenB
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
If experiments that observe quantum phenomena can be run fully-automated, with no human observer present at all, and yet produce the same results as those where a human observer is present, then your argument collapses like a wave-function.
Yes, but how would you know without (at some point) observing something?Bob O'H
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
SB To repeat my #63 above (slightly reworded) How can you tell the difference between: * A deity has given you the knowledge your cognitive capacities are reliable. * A deity has lead you to believe your cognitive capacities are reliable but in fact they are not.Mark Frank
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT
If the theistic model applies to me, then I do know that it is true because I have been endowed with reliable cognition and the assurance that it is reliable. The possible existence of other models cannot compromise or change the nature of what I have been given.
Stephen, this is hopelessly circular. Yielding the irony that you've arrived at assurance of the reliability of your cognition by means of unreliable cognition.Reciprocating Bill
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
KeithS
In other words, if your theistic model is true, then it is true.
Well, not quite. If my theistic model is true, then I am assured that my cognitive capacities are reliable. If my theistic model is false, then I am not assured that my cognitive capacities are reliable.
The question is whether your theistic model is true or false.
In this context, there are two questions; one is metaphysical, one is epistemological Metaphysical--Is my theistic version true or false? Epistemological--Can I know that my theistic version is true or false? We are concerned with both. Here is the answer: If my theistic model is true, then I know that my cognitive capacities are reliable. If my theistic model is false. then I don't know if my cognitive capacities are reliable.
You haven’t demonstrated its truth, so you can’t be certain that your cognition is reliable.
I have demonstrated its truth several times. You have chosen not to address that demonstration.StephenB
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
StephenB,
If the theistic model applies to me, then I do know that it is true...
In other words, if your theistic model is true, then it is true. Correct, but so is the following: If your theistic model is false, then it is false. The question is whether your theistic model is true or false. You haven't demonstrated its truth, so you can't be certain that your cognition is reliable.keith s
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
KeithS
StephenB #80, 1. In your theistic model, cognition is reliable. 2. In other models, cognition is not reliable. 3. You don’t know which model is true. 4. Therefore, you don’t know whether cognition is reliable.
I appreciate the conciseness of your formulation. 1. Check 2. Check 3. No. If the theistic model applies to me, then I do know that it is true because I have been endowed with reliable cognition and the assurance that it is reliable. The possible existence of other models cannot compromise or change the nature of what I have been given. 4. Therefore, under the theistic model, I am assured that my cognition is reliable by virtue of its status as a gift. If it has been given to me, then I have it. Also, recall that I have proven with a concrete example that our cognition is, indeed, reliable.StephenB
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
StephenB #80, 1. In your theistic model, cognition is reliable. 2. In other models, cognition is not reliable. 3. You don't know which model is true. 4. Therefore, you don't know whether cognition is reliable.keith s
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith: First of all, whether I am right or wrong about this or that point regarding evolution, one thing I am an authority on is my own view. I know what I stand for, what I believe. Your post mischaracterized what I believe. You said that I rejected the scientific evidence for common descent. I informed you that I did not. You should have the decency to retract. The "mish-mash of conceptions" that you refer to is your own, not mine. I am capable, as you apparently are not, of distinguishing between the fact of evolution and the mechanisms of evolution. If you had even an elementary grasp of evolutionary theory, you would understand that my criticism pertained to the alleged mechanism, not to the fact. Like so many others here, you appear to conflate ID with creationism. And no number of repeated clarifications seems to get through the thick skulls of people who are guilty of this conflation. Whether it is that they can't comprehend written English, or whether they don't know enough basic epistemology, or whether they are just determined to be unfair in argument, is hard to tell.Timaeus
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
If experiments that observe quantum phenomena can be run fully-automated, with no human observer present at all, and yet produce the same results as those where a human observer is present, then your argument collapses like a wave-function.Seversky
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Reciprocating Bill
So, is it your claim that it is not logically possible for your creator to have endowed us cognition of unknown reliability?
No, I grant that possibility. However, it does not influence the outcome.
Were that granted, then his argument succeeds, as even under theism it is possible that our cognition is not reliable.
Keith's argument does not succeed on those grounds. Here is why: If the Creator designs the cognitive faculty for assurance of reliability, then assurance is guaranteed under that model. Under those circumstances, we, as creatures, will be assured of the reliability because we were designed that way. The existence of other possible models will not affect our certitude because, under that model, we do not have to take other models into account in order to have that experience. That there are other possible theistic models simply means that we might not have had that assurance. It does not mean that we cannot or do not have that assurance. Indeed, the very fact that we recognize the possibility of other models shows that our reasoning model is reliable. If it wasn’t reliable, we could not be sure that the other models are different. Yet we are. We are assured that they are different.StephenB
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith: You mischaracterized my position at: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/chartsil-corrected-on-mechanisms-signs-and-techniques-of-design/ I corrected you in post #61. I have yet to see anything like a retraction or modification of your characterization, there or anywhere else.Timaeus
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
StephenB:
[a] Is it logically possible for the Creator to design cognition such that we can be certain of its reliability?
Not to intrude, but all KeithS needs is for it to be logically possible for the Creator to have endowed us with cognition the reliability of which is not certain. Were that granted, then his argument succeeds, as even under theism it is possible that our cognition is not reliable. So, is it your claim that it is not logically possible for your creator to have endowed us cognition of unknown reliability?Reciprocating Bill
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
KeithS
I’m not assuming that it isn’t possible. I’m pointing out that it isn’t guaranteed, even under the ID assumption that our cognitive systems are designed.
You are assuming that it isn't possible for the Creator to design our cognitive capacities such that we have assurance of their reliability. Indeed, you also claim that even the Creator cannot be certain about the reliability of His own cognition. You have no warrant for making these assumptions.
The fact that your personal theistic model assumes the reliability of cognition is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate the truth of that model.
It is totally relevant. We are comparing two models. Darwinism, for which reliability is not assured, and one ID model, for which it is. Accordingly, there are two issues on the table: [a] Is it logically possible for the Creator to design cognition such that we can be certain of its reliability? [b] Can we, in fact, demonstrate the reliability of our own cognition? The answer to both questions is yes.
You can't, of course
I have demonstrated the reliability of our cognitive capacity with a concrete example of the correspondence between our internal logic and the logical order of the real world. You choose not to address the concrete example. You also choose not to answer my question about the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.
Note that this applies even to God, if he exists. Think about it. God might think that he’s eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent, but he can’t be certain that those thoughts aren’t based on faulty cognition.
That would be a contradiction. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he can't have faulty cognition or be uncertain about its reliability.StephenB
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
RD Miksa,
This is my last post in this thread, but it is in response to RB’s (and others) implied claim that it would be preposterous to believe that false beliefs could be as survival enhancing as true ones.
I did not state (or imply) “that it would be preposterous to believe that false beliefs could be as survival enhancing as true ones.” In fact, in my example above I allow that there may be 50 survival enhancing false beliefs for every survival enhancing true belief. I did state that for your reasoning to work, you have to postulate that that an equal or greater percentage of false beliefs are survival enhancing than the percentage of true beliefs that are survival enhancing. Which is preposterous.Reciprocating Bill
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
as to: "It all comes back to the question of whether there is any other reliable way of learning whether or not a belief is true other than by testing it." The materialist's belief that consciousness is 'emergent' from a material basis is found to be false:
A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Excerpt: Putting all the lines of evidence together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uLcJUgLm1vwFyjwcbwuYP0bK6k8mXy-of990HudzduI/edit Leggett's Inequality is discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video: Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449
bornagain77
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Theism can offer no better explanation for the origins of consciousness than materialism. Positing the existence of a multi-omni deity is an explanation of 'who' not 'how'. As for our beliefs, the question is how do we find out which of our many possible beliefs are true or false, bearing in mind the simple principle that there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right. The only practical way is to test them against reality, which is precisely what happens in the case of evolution. If you believe a hungry tiger is really just a large house cat that wants to be cuddled and petted, the only way to test for the truth of that belief is to go up to it and try. If you're wrong you don't survive the experiment. Yes, we can imagine scenarios in which a false belief leads to behavior which enables survival in certain situations. What we are saying, however, is that the belief has survived one particular test. We can also imagine other scenarios in which it doesn't. We can also envisage beliefs that have no direct effect on an individuals survival one way or the other. Think of them as neutral memes rather than neutral genes. For example, you might believe that human consciousness is a small, glowing blue sphere inside the head while a tiger's is a smaller green sphere. Believing that to be true or false has no obvious effect one way or the other on surviving an encounter with a hungry tiger. It all comes back to the question of whether there is any other reliable way of learning whether or not a belief is true other than by testing it.Seversky
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Atheists hold mind itself to be an illusion. Thus, how can the cognitive faculties that are held by that illusion possibly be said to be trustworthy?:
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 2014 Excerpt: Well and good. But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html How does the brain go beyond processing information to become subjectively aware of information? The answer is: It doesn’t. The brain has arrived at a conclusion that is not correct. When we introspect and seem to find that ghostly thing — awareness, consciousness, the way green looks or pain feels — our cognitive machinery is accessing internal models and those models are providing information that is wrong. Michael S. A. Graziano "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 There is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology-and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain. Daniel Dennett
It is simply logically insane to insist that the mind is an illusion on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, turn right around and try to argue that the cognitive faculties held by that illusory mind are somehow trustworthy.bornagain77
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, you might be interested in this video: Bayes’ Theorem and Atheism 3-14-2015 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW3IGBJi05Abornagain77
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Mark Frank No matter how much you want it to be true. Consciousness does not evolve from non consciousness. For theism consciousness has an explanation. Materialism does not.Andre
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
Keith S You just don't get it do you?Andre
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply