Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?

_{Barry Arrington

March 2, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Theist: You say there is no God.

Evolutionary Materialist [EM]: Yes.

Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists.

EM: I cannot deny that.

Theist: How do you explain that?

EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption.

Theist: But you say religious belief is false.

EM: That’s correct.

Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characterizes: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it.

EM [looking a little pale now, because he’s just figured out where this is going]: Correct.

Theist: You believe the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [NDS] is true.

EM: Of course.

Theist: How do you know your belief in NDS is not another false belief that evolution has selected for?

EM: ___________________

Our materialist friends are invited to fill in the blank.

Comments

F/N: we have good reason to be confident in minds working under the first principles of right reason. What we have no good reason for confidence in is the claim that a mind claimed to be reducing to networks of neurons is any more than whatever chance events and blind mechanical necessity is said to have shaped it on evolutionary materialistic premises. The issue is not whether minds work, but whether minds can be reduced to brains, and brains in turn to 500+ mn years of chance plus blind mechanical necessity. This last claim, for reasons already linked, reduces to absurdity by several different paths. BarryA is simply pointing out one of them above.kairosfocus_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

MF: Kindly cf here on how naturalism traces to it, and then here on the self-referential incoherence involved in evolutionary materialism. Haldane put the dilemma particularly well:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
Check . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Bruce David You are probably right that examples based round probability reasoning are not the clearest. So let's take another, simpler, example. Someone who is bad at maths might wrongly calculate the path of a projectile. They may not know why they were wrong, but when the projectile fails to fulfil their expectations they know their reasoning was faulty. You also need to explain how you know that a material brain is incapable of detecting its errors but somehow you know that an immaterial mind is!markf_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, Difficult to see how you read my post and came away with a assessment that I am a "materialist" (whatever that means.) When I say that "Consciousness exists independently of the brain" that pretty much puts me outside of any popular, or otherwise, definition of "materialism." Beyond that, having perused Monroe's materials years ago, and having had OOB experiences myself, along with various altered stated that I won't get into, I have to respectfully disagree with his (and your) conclusions.kornbelt888_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

kornbelt888: You said, "...the powers and modes of thinking and the experiences of consciousness, are absolutely dependent on the brain." I submit that you do not know this. In Journeys Out of the Body, Robert Monroe chronicles his many out of body experiences. In some of them he visited people and places far from the location of his physical body and learned things he could not have known from the the sensory input available to his physical brain. In Journey of Souls, and its sequel, Destiny of Souls, Michael Newton records some of the thousands of case histories in which he used hypnosis to regress people to the period between their previous life and the current one. Although none of his subjects knew each other, their accounts of that time are remarkably consistent. In My Stroke of Insight, by Jill Bolte Taylor, we have the record of someone who lost most of the functioning of the left hemisphere of her brain, including memory and the power of speach, due to a stroke, yet eventually recovered those capabilities and so could relate to us what the experience was like. Through it all, her consciousness and her sense of identity never left. Here is a description of some of that experience: "In the wisdom of my dementia, I understood that my body was, by the magnificence of its biological design, a precious and fragile gift. It was clear to me that this body functioned like a portal through which the energy of who I am can be beamed into a three-dimensional external space. This cellular mass of my body had provided me with a marvelous TEMPORARY home. [emphasis mine] Now I am sure that you have explanations for all of the above consistent with your materialist world view, but you DO NOT KNOW that those explanations are correct. Your warrant for their truth stems entirely from your metaphysical assumptions (materialism).Bruce David_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

"minds exist independently of our brains, although of course they are intimately tied to each other while we have a body." *Consciousness* exists independently of the brain, not mind. The "shape" of one's mind, i.e, the powers and modes of thinking and the experiences of consciousness, are absolutely dependent on the brain. Try damaging your brain or taking a hallucinogen and you'll find out quickly how true this is. Or just go to sleep.kornbelt888_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Bruce, I completely agree. Materialism is self-stultifying because if it is true, then we cannot know if it (or anything) is true. In addition, all psychological theories that do not make room for real rationality end up this way.Collin_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

markf: You said, "For example, many people have faulty programming when it comes to probability e.g. they belief that if heads comes up five times in a row then the chances of a tail next time increase so as to get 50/50 in the long run. They discover their error when they place bets on the outcome. They may never work out why they were wrong." Conclusions based on probability are not quite so straightforward as you make out. The person betting on tails for the next few tosses might get lucky and have his theory "confirmed". On the other hand, if he is unlucky, how will he decide whether his probability model is incorrect or if he just happens to have landed in the improbable (but not impossible ) tail of the distribution? Someone else might conclude that the coin is biased and bet on heads. How many tails will it take for him to revise his conclusion? Another might tell you that the whole theory of probability is bogus--every possible event either has a probability of 1 (it happened) or 0 (it didn't), but we can't know until after the fact. Who is right? The unavoidable conclusion of materialism is that all our thoughts are entirely the result of complex electro-chemical activity in the brain, ie, of the way our brains process the data input through the senses. These thoughts include any conclusions we draw regarding the nature of reality. One person's brain might process data during childhood and conclude that Christianity is correct, but upon entering college, process more data and become an atheist. Another's might process data during childhood and conclude that agnosticism is the appropriate stance, but later process additional data and conclude that God exists, but that no religion has all the truth. A third might be a Roman Catholic during childhood, but upon processing additional data convert to Islam (to the utter dismay of her Catholic family). The point is this: if the portion of the brain that draws conclusions about the nature of reality is flawed, so that those conclusions cannot be trusted, and if the brain is the one and only producer thoughts, how can the brain even know this fact (that its processing is flawed)? The answer is that it can't. The problem cannot be solved by the input of more data--the problem isn't in the data, it is in the way the brain processes the data. Thus the materialist, by the very nature of his or her beliefs about the nature of reality, cannot trust those beliefs to be true. So I repeat, materialism as a metaphysical position destroys itself.Bruce David_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

fn; In this short video, Dr. Stephen Meyer notes that the early scientists were Christians whose faith motivated them to learn more about their Creator... Dr. Meyer on the Christian History of Science = video http://www.thetruthproject.org/about/culturefocus/A000000287.cfmbornagain77_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

Exactly Barry! Plus, in a materialistic world, even our thoughts are determined by the chemical reactions in our brains. Who is to say whose chemical reactions are trustworthy and whose are not? Since religionists seem to be winning the evolutionary survival game, perhaps, belief in God is being selected for. After all studies have shown there are lots of benefits to going to church and believing in God. Plus, how can anyone say that the extinction of atheists or religionists is either good or bad? Nothing is good or bad in evolution. It cares for nothing and no one. It has no direction, no goal, etc. So one result is as good as another. What is, is. If atheism is really so good, then I'm sure evolution will select for it in time. So atheists need not be worried. OR, should they? Perhaps evolution will select for religionists? At this point in time, that seems to be the trend. Time will tell.tjm_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

markf, In fact it was such a belief in a transcendent invariant order that God has placed on reality that drove the Christian founders of science to make the breakthrough discoveries they did; Christianity Gave Birth To Each Modern Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153 Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/18/18 The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.htmlbornagain77_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

markf you state; 'It is a possibility that we are under a total delusion about scientific evidence. But key difference between religious evidence and scientific evidence is that our scientific evidence is grounded in repeatable observations that engage with reality all the time in very concrete way.' Yet ironically, belief in an orderly universe, where the transcendent laws of physics are non-variant, is a Theistic belief, and in fact atheists fight tooth and nail trying to show that there is no such inherent transcendent order in the universe. Thus you have in fact falsely assumed a primary theistic belief into your atheistic argument for an orderly universe when you stated,,, 'our scientific evidence is grounded in repeatable observations',,, and have severely undermined the credibility of the atheistic belief you were trying to support by appealing to a primary Theistic pillar of belief; notes; This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Nuclear Strength Apologetics - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/nuclear-strength-apologetics/nuclear-strength-apologetics BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491 Latest Test of Physical Constants Affirms Biblical Claim - Hugh Ross - September 2010 Excerpt: The team’s measurements on two quasars (Q0458- 020 and Q2337-011, at redshifts = 1.561 and 1.361, respectively) indicated that all three fundamental physical constants have varied by no more than two parts per quadrillion per year over the last ten billion years—a measurement fifteen times more precise, and thus more restrictive, than any previous determination. The team’s findings add to the list of fundamental forces in physics demonstrated to be exceptionally constant over the universe’s history. This confirmation testifies of the Bible’s capacity to predict accurately a future scientific discovery far in advance. Among the holy books that undergird the religions of the world, the Bible stands alone in proclaiming that the laws governing the universe are fixed, or constant. http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf This following site discusses the many technical problems they had with the paper that recently (2010) tried to postulate variance within the fine structure constant: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/#comment-367471 Psalm 119:89-91 Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.bornagain77_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption.
Religious belief is actually not an evolutionary adaption. Gullibility is.myname_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

Leslie
If the propensity to believe in things with little or no evidence is what is happening, how do you know those who follow evolution are not in the same boat? Of course you think there is evidence, but then Christians think there is evidence too. So just saying “the evidence” doesn’t really answer the question.
It is a possibility that we are under a total delusion about scientific evidence. But key difference between religious evidence and scientific evidence is that our scientific evidence is grounded in repeatable observations that engage with reality all the time in very concrete way. If our scientific beliefs are wrong then planes will crash and diseases will not be cured. If our religious beliefs are wrong then we may be making wrong moral judgements and worshipping the wrong objects – but if someone disagrees there is no concrete way of demonstrating they wrong – planes still fly whether atheism, Catholicism or Buddhism is true . I understand that some scientific beliefs are more conjectural but they are conjectures based on repeatable observations. Bruce David
The problem, of course, is that if there are any flaws in the “programming” of our brains which impact our ability to arrive at correct conclusions, those very flaws will also prevent us from discovering our errors.
Doesn’t follow. For example, many people have faulty programming when it comes to probability e.g. they belief that if heads comes up five times in a row then the chances of a tail next time increase so as to get 50/50 in the long run. They discover their error when they place bets on the outcome. They may never work out why they were wrong.markf_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

Exactly, Ilion, and minds exist independently of our brains, although of course they are intimately tied to each other while we have a body.Bruce David_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Exactly, Bruce David: only minds -- which are not programmed -- are capable of discovering and correcting the errors they may make.Ilion_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Mr. Arrington's post is another (quite clever, in my opinion) way of pointing out the fundamental dilemma of materialism. One must conclude from a materialist position that our brains, which are entirely material, are the sole source of all our thoughts and thus all of the conclusions to which we arrive regarding the nature of reality, including the conclusion that reality is entirely material. The problem, of course, is that if there are any flaws in the "programming" of our brains which impact our ability to arrive at correct conclusions, those very flaws will also prevent us from discovering our errors. Thus, the very assumption of materialism negates any possible confidence we might have in the validity of that point of view. In other words, materialism as a metaphysical position destroys itself.Bruce David_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? ~ Charles Darwinbevets_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Let's change that response up just a little bit: "What is selected for is the strange propensity, in the case of Darwinian evolution, to have a belief when there is little or no evidence. You probably think there is strong evidence for Darwinian evolution, but the majority of people do not believe in Darwinian evolution." That game can work both ways. If the propensity to believe in things with little or no evidence is what is happening, how do you know those who follow evolution are not in the same boat? Of course you think there is evidence, but then Christians think there is evidence too. So just saying "the evidence" doesn't really answer the question.Leslie_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

... the evidence What is selected for is the strange propensity, in the case of religion, to have a belief when there is little or no evidence. You probably think there is strong evidence for Christianity, but the majority of people do not believe in Christianity. So unless you accept there is also strong evidence for all the other religions then for some reason a lot of people believe in something for which there is no strong evidence. This needs explaining.markf_{March 2, 2011
March
03
Mar
2
02
2011
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply