"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of 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 Darwin
Darwin would have made a good philosopher. Unlike those who followed after him, he appears to have intuitively sensed that the theory of evolutionary naturalism undercut his ability to trust that we can form true beliefs and convictions. In order for us to have true beliefs we have to have properly functioning noetic equipment (brain, spinal cord, senses, etc. that operate in accordance with reality).
But can the evolutionary process produce reliable equipment? Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga thinks the answer is no. While his explanation is far too complex to be presented in a single post, I'll try to outline the basics of his case in order to provide the gist of his argument.
Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our cognitive faculties developed as they did because they had some survival value or reproductive advantage. But there are at least five ways that our faculties could have developed and none of them require our equipment to produce true belief.
Since we'll be talking about beliefs and their effect on behavior, it would be useful to use an example of someone who produces them. We'll use Zed, a prehistoric caveman, for our model. Zed is the first to cross the line over to homo sapien (his parents are so proud) and is the first to develop functioning noetic equipment that's the same as our own.
There are several types of beliefs that Zed's equipment could produce:
Ex. #1 -- Zed's brain could produce no belief at all. Since matter is all that exists and beliefs are not physical, it could be argued that beliefs don't exist. (Of course in order to argue this position we would have to believe our argument so this is self-defeating.) If it's true, though, it would be obvious that if beliefs don't exist then neither do true beliefs.
Ex. #2 -- Zed's brain produces beliefs that are effects but not causes. These beliefs are sort of the garnish on the plate of behavior. They are there but they have no purpose. Zed's beliefs are simply waking dreams and therefore can play no role in survival.
Ex. #3 -- Zed's brain produces beliefs that are caused by and cause behaviors but their content is not important to the behavior itself. Zed has discovered both language and singing. He notices that when he sings "UGGA BOO UGGAGA BOO" at the top of his lungs that it scares off birds and small animals. Zed believes that the words "UGGA BOO" have a magical effect on the animals that causes them to run away in fear. The content of the words of course, have no affect on the animals. It's Zed's horrendous voice that is scaring them away.
Ex. #4 -- Zed's brain produces beliefs that are caused by and cause behaviors because of their content. Unfortunately for Zed, this could be a disadvantage. For Zed to be able to produce rational beliefs he has to have a large central nervous system which includes a big brain and a spinal cord.
You don't just slap that type of thing together overnight. It requires a long, vulnerable gestation period and an extended postnatal period. In other words, Zed's noetic equipment takes time to develop. During this time he has a good chance of being eaten by something. (Big brains are a delicacy for saber tooth tigers.) This is, evolutionarily speaking, a maladaptive behavior. It could be passed on by the parents but have no advantage for survival.
Ex. #5 -- Zed's brain produces beliefs that are caused by and cause behaviors because of their content and it could have an evolutionary advantage. But there is yet another problem for old Zed. What are the chances that his noetic equipment produces true beliefs. According to Plantinga, we have no reaso to believe that it is necessaryy for a belief to be true in order to be advantageous.
In order to survive, Zed needs to act in certain ways in order to survive. For example, he needs to avoid the saber tooth tiger taking a bite out of his big brain. We'll call this behavior B for "tiger avoidance behavior." Now B could be produced by Zed's desire not to get eaten plus the true belief that B will increase his chances of not having his brain eaten.
The problem is that B could be produced by false beliefs as well. Perhaps Zed likes the idea of being eaten and wants to run toward the tiger. But Zed always confuses running toward with running away from tigers. His false belief actually aids his survival. Therefore it is possible that beliefs could have a survival advantage and yet be false.
The point of all this is that Zed's having noetic equipment that produce true beliefs is not necessary for his survival. Since this holds true for even the most basic survival behavior, it is especially true when it comes to abstract ideas (i.e., the theory of naturalistic evolution). While it is possible that the belief is true it is not, from an evolutionary perspective, necessary that it is true. If it wasn't necessary for our noetic equipment to develop in any particular way it's possible that faculties could produce beliefs in any of the five ways listed above.
Since all of the scenarios are possible, what is the likelihood that evolutionary naturalism has produced in us cognitive equipment that is able to form true beliefs? Extremely low. It would be just a lucky coincidence. So in accepting the evolutionary explanation for the development of our noetic equipment we have to be agnostic about its reliability. Evolutionary naturalism, it turns out, is a self-defeating argument. If we believe the theory then we find that we have no reason to believe it's true.
[Resources: All ideas presented that are coherent and intelligible should be credited to the writings of Alvin Plantinga, J.P. Moreland, and William Lane Craig. Anything that is muddled, lacking in coherence, or just plain goofy (i.e., Zed the caveman) can be attributed to me.]
1
I can't tell you how disappointed I am that this wasn't a post about the minds of us bloggers at Infinite Monkeys.
Yes, humility seems to be my strong point.
Ook ack.
posted on 01.08.2004 1:11 PM2
If its any consolation, the character of Zed was based on The Chosen Monkey.
posted on 01.08.2004 1:22 PM3
It sounds like you've got the argument summarized more or less like I remember it, except I think that he ended up changing it at some point to refine some point.
I think that there is something to be said for a very simple intuitive argument: what is the chance, given evolution and naturalism, that we could have a faculty of reason which is capable of generalizing and comprehending the universe? I mean, really - it would seem pretty low. Just think about what it would take for some such thing to come about. A mind that can formulate totally unuseful things such as advanced mathematics. (Don't tell me that the ability to build electronics and computers was 'selected for' - mathematics is not that useful of a skill for man to have).
If E+N are true, then chances are some basic and fundamental features of our consciousnesses are totally wrong, or perhaps just weirdly different from reality. The ability to reason, as distinct from just applying means-ends rationality, seems unlikely to emerge through natural selection from a naturalist's perspective. Of course, once upon a time when I was a naturalist or something like one, I didn't believe in formal logic, though I used it. So perhaps I'm partial.
posted on 01.08.2004 1:26 PM4
The above presented arguement falls into the category of arguements against evolution that really made me not believe in it as a theory of creation. I call them the transaction cost arguements. The basic idea is that, while evolution as a process definately exists, the transaction costs are far too high for it exist as a way that created the universe. The evolutionary hurdles that needed to be jumped to get to man animals present state did not constitute improvements to the species. Some animals, like birds, need many different evolutionary changes to reach a useful state: hollow bones, strong wing muscles, flight-capable wings). The creation of wings, if not flight enabled, does not help a bird survive. This is especially true at the small levels of change that occur to move an "arm" into a "wing". These changes, more than anything, would restrict the animals ability to move, thus being conter-evolutionary.
posted on 01.08.2004 1:45 PM5
Doug:
The creation of wings, if not flight enabled, does not help a bird survive. This is especially true at the small levels of change that occur to move an "arm" into a "wing". These changes, more than anything, would restrict the animals ability to move, thus being conter-evolutionary.Dawkins addresses this quite nicely. I'll see if I can find it. The gist is that the interim changes are often neutral, and sometimes even part of a wing can be useful.
The problem is that the most popular alternative explanation -- "God did it" -- doesn't really expalin anything at all. What exactly does that tell us, other than to stop asking questions?
posted on 01.08.2004 11:02 PM6
It's worth noting that C. S. Lewis makes a very similar argument in the third chapter of Miracles. That book as a whole is a wonderful read, being the most developed of Lewis' many forays into the reasoned roots of faith, ranging across the fields of biology, physics, knowledge theory, probability, and more.
posted on 01.09.2004 5:02 PM7
jwise:
The only C.S. Lewis book (apart from Narnia) that I've read was Mere Christianity, and it had more holes than a piece of cheesecloth. Hopefully the rest of his Christian apologia is significantly better than that.
posted on 01.09.2004 6:20 PM8
``Eh''. While I'm sure a pro-con debate on the benefits of Mere Christianity would hold some merit (I'll only say for the moment that I don't share your opinion of it), it's a very different type of work than Miracles or other of Lewis' longer works. In particular, having grown out of a group of radio addresses, it makes no attempt to provide the in-depth knowledge-theory basis for Christian faith that Miracles does.
That said, I'm quite fond of Mere Christianity, although I think some of the routes he explores there he was able to address better in later works -- in particular, the essay The Poison of Subjectivism, which can be found in several collections of his writings (and in Russell Kirk's Portable Conservative Reader) presents the central point of much of Mere Christianity in a much more developed (and witty) manner, while fisking quite nicely several key arguments against Traditional and Christian belief.
At the end of the day, while Miracles is an argument in depth, Mere Christianity attempts to, in a short and digestible form, get people thinking about Christian themes, and show up some of the more dishonest objections to rational belief. Does it serve this purpose? Well, speaking as someone whose conversion to Christianity came after reading a number of works by Lewis and others, including this one, I'd say `yes'.
posted on 01.09.2004 11:24 PM9
"The only C.S. Lewis book (apart from Narnia) that I've read was Mere Christianity, and it had more holes than a piece of cheesecloth."
It's one thing to have an opinion Mr. Girsch, but that statement is ridiculous. Instead of the strawman approach, how about mounting a well reasoned attack?
posted on 01.10.2004 4:12 PM10
""God did it" -- doesn't really expalin anything at all. What exactly does that tell us, other than to stop asking questions?"
Actually, I agree with you, in a certain context, with regards to that statment. If a someone considers the "God did it" explanation to be reasonable and *then* decides to stop asking questions - I would surmise that they probably have a limited sense of curiosity. Rather, I would posit that even if someone concludes that "God did it" that in no way should stop further investigation. In fact, it should cause additional investigation, to further build the case for a Designer, to gain additional understanding of the mechanisms involved, to discover additional aspects of the systems involved, etc.
posted on 01.10.2004 4:18 PM11
Rusty:
In fact, it should cause additional investigation, to further build the case for a Designer, to gain additional understanding of the mechanisms involved, to discover additional aspects of the systems involved, etc.But what if those mechanisms seem to contradict what we are taught in scripture? If we start from the conclusion (that scripture must be correct, regardless of what we seem to see), then what we are doing is not science. If, on the other hand, we allow ourselves to weigh the evidence on its own merits, and compare it objectively to scripture, regardless of where this might lead us, then THAT is science.
An interesting alternative is that there is indeed a Designer (or even a group of designers), but not the one described to us by the Christian scriptures. People on all sides of the evolution/creation/design debate tend to ignore this logical possibility.
posted on 01.13.2004 10:41 PM