Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why is Seeing the Glaringly Obvious So Hard?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yesterday I had an exchange with Seversky that illustrates something I have observed countless times over the years.  Materialists have a blind spot regarding how their own arguments undermine, well, their own arguments.  Here is the exchange:

Johnnyb wrote:

The reason for this is the precise theorem that Hoffman states – in evolutionary competition, fitness beats truth.

To which Sev responded:

Unless fitness is truth in which case there is no competition. How does Hoffman – or Plantinga – distinguish between “fitness” and “truth”? Are they comparing like with like?

I wrote:

But Sev, you know for a certain fact that according to your own premises fitness and truth are not the same.  For 99% of human existence, 99% of humans have believed in a God or gods.  Your premises compel you to say that evolutionary forces caused that state of affairs (for the simple reason that, under your premises, there are no other alternatives).  You also say that a belief in a God or gods is a false belief.  Therefore, simple logic applied to your own factual premises demands the conclusion that evolutionary forces selected for a false belief.

Sev:

I agree that evolution can select for false beliefs, religion being a possible example, but not that it mostly or always does. Human beings survive better in groups than on their own. Religious belief, even if false, can help to bind such groups together more tightly and make them more resilient in face of challenges. At that level, it is advantageous in terms of survival. On the other hand, believing that tigers are big, cuddly pets who just want to play is probably not going to be so advantageous and, over time, those holding such beliefs are less likely to survive and pass on that belief.

Barry


“I agree that evolution can select for false beliefs . . .” Then you have given away the store.  If evolution can select for false beliefs, who is to say when it has selected for a false belief as opposed to a true one.  You advance a candidate for what you believe to be a true belief (human beings survive better in groups).  Yet, you admit that evolution may have caused you to believe that even though it is false.

It never ceases to astound me that seemingly intelligent people (and I count Sev among such), can’t seem to grasp the glaringly obvious end of the logic.  If our beliefs are the product of blind material forces, we can NEVER know whether we believe them because they are actually true or because those blind material forces caused us to believe them even though they are false.

Comments
If we have become blinded, we cannot see, so we need to sort out our vision. And yes, self referential incoherence is self-defeating.kairosfocus
December 10, 2019
December
12
Dec
10
10
2019
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
Right- lines of flux come from current flowing down a wire but aren't material. Heat comes from hot coals but the heat isn't material.ET
December 9, 2019
December
12
Dec
9
09
2019
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
Sure. ET.. But it is not, itself, the material, but a presumably mysterious emanation from it, whether pushing or pulling. And yes, I get your point about American football. There was once a player they called, 'The refrigerator' ! I expect there have been some other impressive names, indicating a sort of dynamic solidity. Like the sunglasses, too.Axel
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Magnetism comes from material. And there are plenty of material American footballers who are a force :cool:ET
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
How can something material be a force ? It can be configured to exert a force, but 'be' one ? Even magnetism isn't material, is it ?Axel
December 8, 2019
December
12
Dec
8
08
2019
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
JAD (& attn EG et al): It is interesting to see how a nuanced point is so readily reduced to a strawman caricature. Here, as regards something so readily shown as core issues in Mathematics. What I have actually argued is that certain core aspects of Mathematics are necessary entities deriving from the mere distinct identity of any given possible world W distinguishable from a near neighbour W' by some distinct attribute A. So, W may be structurally partitioned W = {A|~A}. We here see framework quantities that are present, by inspection. A is a unity, and ~A a complex unity. Taking the two together, we find a duality. The dichotomising partition | is empty, thus expressing a nullity. Thus 0-ness, 1-ness [simple and complex], 2-ness are necessary correlates of the possibility of a distinct world. From this the von Neumann construction lays out N, and on that, structuring relationships take us to Z, Q, R, C. Thus, we do not invent these structures and quantities but discover them, C being understood on the vector-rotation view. Similarly, there are many world-embedded, discoverable Math facts that constrain construction of axiomatised logic model worlds, ranging from 2 + 3 = 5 to the 3-4-5 triangle relation to the difference between cutting a Mobius strip around in the centre vs 1/3 of the way in from an edge, to how superposed rotating vectors with frequency & phase patterns construct wave patterns, etc etc etc, showing a world of discoverable, embedded Mathematical facts. Such are patent. Now let us see EG as cited:
That is all any of us can do. Mathematics either exists independent of humans or it is something invented by humans to model our observations. My opinion is that it is the latter. ET and KF believe it is the former. But, unfortunately, there is no way of determining which is true. And, frankly, does it matter?
Notice, the gap between the implied all of math being discovered and there being a world-framework embedded core of structure and quantity? Or, that there are indisputably many discoverable facts, including the one I highlighted on the contrast of cutting a Mobius strip around in centre vs 1/3 way in from the edge . . . yielding dramatically different results . . . thus demonstrating a discoverable core? If this is the case with Mathematics, what are we to say when we come to the design inference? Especially when much the same circles of perpetual objectors in the penumbra of attack sites are riddled with denial of inescapable, self-evident first principles and duties of reason? Indeed, we see such implying the said duties and principles in attempts to deny, dismiss or cast doubts. The conclusion is that the rationalism of evolutionary materialistic scientism has run its course and has reduced itself to outright irrationality. As was warned. We may freely stand on reason and Mathematics, and we may simply declare intellectual independence, standing on what is manifest. The design inference is well warranted empirically and is amply supported by blind search challenge in large config spaces beyond 500 - 1,000 bits worth of possibilities. The objector campaign has failed on the merits, and has been exposed as riddled with irrationality. KFkairosfocus
November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
A thought: If one cannot see the obvious, is one blind or blindfolded? (Perhaps, ideologically and/or morally so . . . and yes, I am again pointing to inescapable and thus self-evident first duties of reason.) KF PS: This is not a new thought, observe these 2000 year old classic references:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so if your eye is clear [spiritually perceptive], your whole body will be full of light [benefiting from God’s precepts]. 23 But if your eye is bad [spiritually blind], your whole body will be full of darkness [devoid of God’s precepts]. So if the [very] light inside you [your inner self, your heart, your conscience] is darkness, how great and terrible is that darkness! Eph 4:17 So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], 18 for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart. 19 And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand]. 20 But you did not learn Christ in this way! 21 If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him], 22 that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], 24 and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation]. [Both, AMP]
kairosfocus
November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Andrew,
And why is a epistemological subjectivist like Ed George here? What is he trying to accomplish?
Who knows? Typically our interlocutors don’t tell us why they are here. I doubt very much that it’s because they have any interest or curiosity about ID. All I was trying to point out with my post is that they don’t have any arguments which refutes any of the arguments we have raised over the past few years. I think all of us on the ID side are interested in pursuing the Truth about life, the universe and the meaning of our own existence. Are they? It appears not. As Ed asked, “And, frankly, does it matter?” If that’s his attitude, why is he here wasting everyone’s time?john_a_designer
November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
"Why are we wasting time on people who are epistemological subjectivists like Ed George?" JAD, And why is a epistemological subjectivist like Ed George here? What is he trying to accomplish? Andrewasauber
November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Why are we wasting time on people who are epistemological subjectivists like Ed George? His belief is that all he or anyone else has are opinions. You want proof? Here’s a debate we had with Mr. George about a year ago when we were debating whether math was something that had been discovered or had been invented with him and others. Pater Kimbridge started the dispute @ #4 when he argued:
One must be careful not to slide into a pit of equivocation here. The universe has structure and quantity, but numbers are an invention of Man. In fact, all of mathematics is an invention of Man. It bothers me when people refer to the “mathematical universe”. There is no math in the universe. To believe that there is, is a mind-projection fallacy.
EG concurred with him @ #11: For what it’s worth, I have to side with PK on this. https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/logic-first-principles-4-the-logic-of-being-causality-and-science/#comment-669565 To which ET responded @ #12: For what it is worth- I would love to see PK or anyone who sides with PK actually make their case. KF concurred @ # 13: EG, make your case: _______ EG @ #17 replied: It is my opinion that mathematics is a human invention that can be used to model the world that we see around us. For example e = mc^2 means absolutely nothing without first defining energy, mass and the speed of light. I then tried to clarify what EG was asserting @ #19:
So what is EG’s argument? Either X or Y could be true EG believes Y Therefore, Y is true. In other words, Ed George believes it. That settles it.
https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/logic-first-principles-4-the-logic-of-being-causality-and-science/#comment-669574 EG then responded:
That is all any of us can do. Mathematics either exists independent of humans or it is something invented by humans to model our observations. My opinion is that it is the latter. ET and KF believe it is the former. But, unfortunately, there is no way of determining which is true. And, frankly, does it matter?
https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/logic-first-principles-4-the-logic-of-being-causality-and-science/#comment-669576 So if it doesn’t matter, why persist? Does doubling down on one’s subjective opinion make it any truer?john_a_designer
November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
crazy, intolerant, racist, homophobic uncle
Crazy like a fox. Intolerant of liars, bluffers, equivocators and quote-mining cowards. Racist? Only if "pathological liar" or "evoTARD" is a race. Homophobic? Only a total and desperate loser would equate my saying that marriage is between a man and a women with being a homophobe.ET
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
As to:
Vividbleau @87 E.G. “2+2=4” Prove it Vivid
To wit: Per extensive analysis of Godel's incompleteness theorem, "anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true.
A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MATHEMATICS Vern Poythress - Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard) 15. Implications of Gödel’s proof B. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true. http://www.frame-poythress.org/a-biblical-view-of-mathematics/
i.e. Without God, Atheists can't even prove that 2+2=4. :) Of related interest, Godel's incompleteness theorem was born out of the fact that mathematicians could not even 'prove' that 1+1=2. You can pick up some of the details of that episode in math history at 10:00 minute mark of the following video
BBC-Dangerous Knowledge - Part 3 of 5 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdoj7y
Supplemental note:
Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity ... all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency ... no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness ... all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
bornagain77
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
Reapers, you are sorry. You are nothing but a biased loser who couldn't form a cogent argument if your life depended on it. Yes, Ed comes off as a child. You do, too. Ed lies and quote-mines. There isn't anything more childish than that. Clearly you have issues and are not a voice of reason.
Why do you find it necessary to respond in an insulting way to everyone who disagrees with you?
I don't. Clearly you are a liar and a sociopath
The only conclusion I can draw is that they view you as the crazy, intolerant, racist, homophobic...
I would expect that from a demented loser such as yourself.ET
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
ET
Ed George is not just anyone. Ed George has lied. Ed George has quote-mined. And All Ed can do is respond like a child.
Sorry, but he is not the one looking like a child.
Context, Reaper. You have to consider the trash that I am responding to. Or perhaps you can’t because you have a bias issue.
No I don’t. Nobody else here responds in the childish way that you do. That reflects more on you than EG, Hazel and others. And not in a positive way. But you already know this.
They understand the trash that I am responding to. YOU, on the other hand, seem to have an issue present a cogent argument. You don’t seem to have the ability to follow along.
Why do you find it necessary to respond in an insulting way to everyone who disagrees with you? Even the people from the ID side notice this. The only conclusion I can draw is that they view you as the crazy, intolerant, racist, homophobic uncle who is incapable of filtering his comments.
Coming from a laughing stock, who has yet to add anything beyond its clueless commentary, I am sure that no one cares what you have to say.
Perhaps. But I have faith that people here see you for what you are. The fact that very few stick up for you suggests that I am correct.Reapers Plague
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
. I think Vivid captured Ed's logic with his/her usual clarity:
Here is the duck duck guy's argument in a nutshell. People and cultures disagree about morality therefore no objective moral standard exists. Compelling isn’t it?
EDIT: By the way Ed, in order to be truly certain, she needs the consensus of others, doesn't she?Upright BiPed
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Ed George:
Your argument is with all of recorded history, not me.
YOU made the unsupportable claim.ET
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Reapers Blahblah:
Are you capable of disagreeing with anyone without turning it into an insult?
Ed George is not just anyone. Ed George has lied. Ed George has quote-mined. And All Ed can do is respond like a child.
You do realize that this behavior is a defense mechanism for those who can’t present a cogent argument?
Context, Reaper. You have to consider the trash that I am responding to. Or perhaps you can't because you have a bias issue.
Why any site would allow your behavior, and presumably condone it, is beyond me.
They understand the trash that I am responding to. YOU, on the other hand, seem to have an issue presenting a cogent argument. You don't seem to have the ability to follow along.
They have to realize that it makes them a laughing stock.
Coming from a laughing stock, who has yet to add anything beyond its clueless commentary, I am sure that no one cares what you have to say.ET
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
ET
Unfortunately for you that statement cannot be supported.
Your argument is with all of recorded history, not me.Ed George
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
E.G. “2+2=4” Prove it Vividvividbleau
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
VB
Ok prove it.
2+2=4.
But math is form of symbolic logic.
Yes. But math is one of the few fields of study where we actually talk about “proofs”. Extending this from mathematical “proofs” to philosophical “proofs” is complicated, to say the least.Ed George
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Ed George:
I’m not the one defending objective moral values when all of human history (and I mean ALL OF IT) suggests otherwise.
Unfortunately for you that statement cannot be supported.ET
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
It never ceases to astound me that seemingly intelligent people (and I count Sev among such), can’t seem to grasp the glaringly obvious end of the logic. If our beliefs are the product of blind material forces, we can NEVER know whether we believe them because they are actually true or because those blind material forces caused us to believe them even though they are false.
C.S. Lewis wrote a tidy little book about this subject called Miracles Materialists usually end up defending their views with some form of induction argument. Which is nothing but dog logic. Useful, until it isn't, but not "true." So the materialist is utimately left with defending their own rational powers with those selfsame rational powers, as if the thing doing the defending isn't the thing under suspicion. My 26 year old son humorously calls this a "self-referential circle jerk."mike1962
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
ET
Not to the willfully ignorant, anyway.
You were never a popular kid at school, were you? Are you capable of disagreeing with anyone without turning it into an insult? You do realize that this behavior is a defense mechanism for those who can’t present a cogent argument? No, of course you don’t. Why any site would allow your behavior, and presumably condone it, is beyond me. They have to realize that it makes them a laughing stock.Reapers Plague
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
EG “I think the laws of logic are provable. A+B=C as an example.” Ok prove it. “ When we extend logic beyond the pure mathematical, yes, it gets messy.” But math is form of symbolic logic. Vividvividbleau
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
. Oh look, he responds as long as he doesn't have to engage documented physical evidence or recorded history. And he responds by assuming his conclusion. Quite a sight.Upright BiPed
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
UBP
Quite a sight. The man who very clearly avoids physical evidence and documented history gives instructions in logic.
I’m not the one defending objective moral values when all of human history (and I mean ALL OF IT) suggests otherwise.Ed George
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
. Quite a sight. The man who very clearly avoids both physical evidence and documented history gives instructions in logic.Upright BiPed
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
VB
Don’t we all in the end have to make certain unprovable assumptions such as the laws of logic?
I think the laws of logic are provable. A+B=C as an example. When we extend logic beyond the pure mathematical, yes, it gets messy. But that is my point. KF has repeatedly presented logical arguments that he thinks are unassailable. But they rely on premises that are anything but certain.Ed George
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
E.G. “We have had materialist that actually deny logic as a way of demonstrating things that must be false. They deny the primacy of mind and logic” It surprises me that you don’t agree with this as well since it has been demonstrated by materialistic posters in the past? Vividvividbleau
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
Ed George:
Self-evident truths that are not demonstrably true.
Not to the willfully ignorant, anyway.ET
November 18, 2019
November
11
Nov
18
18
2019
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply