1

Matthew Goggins,

If we see brains that appear to be produced by non-rational processes, such as evolution, we can therefore conclude that rational things or beings are indeed produced by non-rational processes. There is no reason to think otherwise.

Good point, Matthew.

If, after examining and weighing all the available evidence, it appears that non-rational impersonal processes have led to the development of our brains, then we may indeed conclude that the non-rational is capable of producing the rational.

For example, there seems to be evidence that over the past few hundred million years life on earth has been engaged in a relentless struggle for survival and reproduction which has resulted in the gradual development of a brain such as our own. Accordingly we may conclude that, to the extent that our brains are capable of being rational, rational brains have been designed and produced by the non-rational processes of evolution.

Far from engaging in circular reasoning, you are just alluding to the vast amount of empirical evidence which supports the non-rational design of the rational.

It is certainly not the case that it is a self-evident truth that the non-rational is the source of the rational. This conjecture is, rather, a 150-year-old theory which experienced a period of great initial controversy and widespread resistance in the scientific community. Since that time the theory has gained the support of the scientists who work in the relevant fields, and has established itself as the consensus scientific understanding of the natural history of our species.

As an educated layperson, I would agree with you that there isn't anything particularly impossible about the non-rational leading to the rational. Although it is pretty darn cool, to say the least, how it all worked out the way it did.

Thanks for pointing all this out. May you continue to post salient remarks which catch the attention of our blog host.

2

Matthew Goggins,

If we see brains that appear to be produced by non-rational processes, such as evolution, we can therefore conclude that rational things or beings are indeed produced by non-rational processes. There is no reason to think otherwise.

Good point, Matthew.

If, after examining and weighing all the available evidence, it appears that non-rational impersonal processes have led to the development of our brains, then we may indeed conclude that the non-rational is capable of producing the rational.

For example, there seems to be evidence that over the past few hundred million years life on earth has been engaged in a relentless struggle for survival and reproduction which has resulted in the gradual development of a brain such as our own. Accordingly we may conclude that, to the extent that our brains are capable of being rational, rational brains have been designed and produced by the non-rational processes of evolution.

Far from engaging in circular reasoning, you are just alluding to the vast amount of empirical evidence which supports the non-rational design of the rational.

It is certainly not the case that it is a self-evident truth that the non-rational is the source of the rational. This conjecture is, rather, a 150-year-old theory which experienced a period of great initial controversy and widespread resistance in the scientific community. Since that time the theory has gained the support of the scientists who work in the relevant fields, and has established itself as the consensus scientific understanding of the natural history of our species.

As an educated layperson, I would agree with you that there isn't anything particularly impossible about the non-rational leading to the rational. Although it is pretty darn cool, to say the least, how it all worked out the way it did.

Thank you for pointing all this out. May you continue to post salient remarks which catch the attention of our blog host.

3

Accordingly we may conclude that, to the extent that our brains are capable of being rational, rational brains have been designed and produced by the non-rational processes of evolution.

What evidence do you have to support this conclusion? Even if we accept that the modern beliefs about evolutionary theory are 100% true, there is no evidence to suggest that it occurred by non-rational, unguided means. That is just a supposition that is thrown in that has neither been tested or disproved.

Also, if your claim is true then you have an air-tight defeater against naturalism.

4

Just some ramblings ...
One of the characteristics that comes into these discussions is a confusion on the types of evidence. The term "scientific" (which has an associated methodology) is bandied about as though it's an absolute and its conclusions above reproach. And that confuses the average Harry & Mary listener.
There's more than one type of evidence, and it shows up in court all the time -- we should not forget historical evidence and its differentiation from scientific (deductively concluded) evidence.
The claim of "scientific" for evolution is one that has led to wrong thinking. The matter is one of historical evidence and the conclusions from the data should not be above critique. But that's part of the problem in Kansas.
Because the question of evolution is one based on that combination of a natural world view and historical evidence, what you're doing is pulling a leg out from under the philosophical half of the equation.

5

Lemme see if i get this...the point being made here is that it is irrarional to "believe" that rational thoughts could have emmerged from an irrational process without being directed by a rational invisible supernatural being and the reason that "naturalisimists" just dont get that is because they re just stubborn....

fair enough,thats one way to look at it....in the same order of idea,it seems irrational to believe that the reason we re not being thrown right off the spinning earth is due to an undirected process known as gravity when a much more sensible explanation would be that the reason we dont go flying upwards is because we re being held down by invisible angels servitors of the invisible super being. and the reason why "gravitationalists" dont get it is because,once again,they re just being stubborn.

Hell,why stop there...there s a whole pletora of "natural" looking phenomenon that would be much better explained by the "goddoesit" magic answer.

6

Every science claims to be a series of inferences from observed facts. It is only by such inferences that you can reach your nebulae and protoplasm and dinosaurs and sub-men and cave-men at all. Unless you start by believing that reality in the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you can have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any palaeontology, any archaeology. To reach the positions held by the real scientists -- which are then taken over by the Myth -- you must, in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational -- if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel -- how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? They say in effect: 'I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.' But this is the same as saying: 'I will prove that proofs are irrational': more succinctly, 'I will prove that there are no proofs': The fact that some people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the difficulty, confirms one's suspicion that we here touch a radical disease in their whole style of thought. But the man who does see it, is compelled to reject as mythical the cosmology in which most of us were brought up. ~ C.S. Lewis

7

matthew:

You appear to have no doubts about naturalism, while Darwin himself had "horrid" doubts. What makes you so special?

You also wrote: "If we see brains that appear to be produced by non-rational processes, such as evolution, we can therefore conclude that rational things or beings are indeed produced by non-rational processes. There is no reason to think otherwise."

If it "appears" to be a certain way, it in no way means it IS that way. Science is not about appearances. That's politics.

8

Plantinga's argument has elicited various responses. Some are collected in Beilby's "Naturalism Defeated". John Post has written a nice little review. (Google: review "naturalism defeated".) "Naturalism Defeated" gathers together the work of some of the best epistemologists at work today - I'd guess that some even match Plantinga in intellectual horsepower.

Here's what Post has to say about one line of response to Plantinga:

William Ramsey argues that Plantinga "overlooks the most sensible way . . . to get clear on how truth can be a property of beliefs that bestows an advantage on cognitive systems" (16). Roughly, the best explanation of why the relevant sort of creature, when successful, finds food, avoids predators, spots a mate, is that it possesses accurate beliefs (or accurate "maps by which [to] steer") as regards various objects' location, trajectory and character.

9

One possible response to Nokes' question (How can we imagine the non-material?) is that the question assumes something false. It assumes that we do imagine the non-material and then asks how, if materialism is true, this is possible. Perhaps the materialist ought to say that in fact we do not imagine the nonmaterial.

Granted some say what the nonmaterial is not. They say - of course - that it is nonmaterial. They say that it is nonspatial and nontemporal. But none of these give us any positive image of the nonmaterial and thus do not allow us to imagine it.

Of course some say more about the non-material than that it is not this and not that. They say, for instance, that God is non-material and then they describe God. But expect the materialist to say that, in our description of God, we make use of terms that have their genesis in the senses and thus are taken from our perception of the material world. For example, it's said that God has power over all things. But where do we derive our idea of power? What is its source? It comes to us from the senses, and our senses reveal to us only the material world.

Thus expect the materialist to say that when we say something positive about the non-material, what in fact we've done is simply trasfer characteristics of material things to the immaterial. We thus have no independent idea of the non-material, and all our attempts to imagine it simply replicate in some way (some of the) characteristics of the material world.

10

Joe,

What evidence do you have to support this conclusion? Even if we accept that the modern beliefs about evolutionary theory are 100% true, there is no evidence to suggest that it occurred by non-rational, unguided means.

Evolution through natural selection (ETNS) does not include rational, guided selection as part of its hypothesis. So if ETNS is true, then rational guided selection is not necessary.

Also, if your claim is true then you have an air-tight defeater against naturalism.

Hunh?

Jd,

You appear to have no doubts about naturalism, while Darwin himself had "horrid" doubts. What makes you so special?

Two reasons.

Naturalism contradicted some of Darwin's most deeply held religious beliefs. Not so with me.

Darwin was well aware how revolutionary his theory was, and that's why he accumulated evidence for it over three decades before daring to publish his book.

Second, there is astronomically more evidence in favor of naturalistic evolution now than there was in Darwin's time. For example, all the DNA evidence.

11

"If it "appears" to be a certain way, it in no way means it IS that way. Science is not about appearances. That's politics."

well actually when it "appears" to be a certain way AND the evidence available all support it "appearing" to be a certain way AND absolutely no evidence whatsoever exsits that refutes how it "appears" to be,then its quite rational to conclude that it works just as how it "appears" to. no politics required

12

Franklin Mason writes:

Thus expect the materialist to say that when we say something positive about the non-material, what in fact we've done is simply trasfer characteristics of material things to the immaterial. We thus have no independent idea of the non-material, and all our attempts to imagine it simply replicate in some way (some of the) characteristics of the material world.

Bingo! The materialist would say that because it is entirely true, which is why all non-material explanations are suspect. Starting with God. All traditional theistic images of God include his personal nature, but the personal is an articact of the material world.

The argument from cause assumes that time is a reality that spans the physical universe and the meta-physical, non-material realm, yet we know that time is a dimension of space-time, and is an artifact of this realm. Causality is a property of time, without time there is no causality. So God's reason for being can't exist because he can't cause temporal events. He would have to enter space-time to do so, and become a material being.

Religious metaphysics is much like the joke of the man looking for his keys:

A man sees another man desperately searching the ground near a lamppost. He asks the other man what he is doing.

"I'm looking for my car keys, I dropped them". The first man begins helping the man search. After 10 minutes of futile searching, the first man asks the second "are you sure that you dropped them in this area?"

The second man replies "no, I dropped them over there near the fire hydrant."

The first man, puzzled, asks "then why are you searching for them over here?"

The second man replies "because the light is better here."

We know that the immaterial world must be very different than the material. Indeed, since we know that fundamental qualities of our own physical realm, time, causality and three dimensional extension do not apply to it. It is so different than what we are equipped to think about that there is no way that we can even imagine what it is like. We can't trust any of the words in our vocabulary to even have any meaning in that realm.

But some continue to look for it in the place it cannot be, in the familiar realm of personal intent and temporal causality.

13

First Richard Nook's passage:

In this material world, how can people imagine the non-material? If all is material, then the immaterial is completely beyond the paradigm of humans (and other denizens of the natural world). For someone to imagine the immaterial when neither they nor anyone else has ever experienced the immaterial is rather like trying to imagine a fifth dimension -- it is something so far out of our perception that conceiving of it seems nearly impossible.

Which brings up mathematics. Mathematics seems to do an excellent (though not perfect) job describing this material world yet as Joe will be happy to agree there are many mathematical objects that don't really seem to exist in the material world. For example, there is no such thing as a circle, triangle, or even straight line in our material world. There are only objects that appear to be very similar to these idealized objects.

One answer is that there exists an alternate world of these ideal forms that are somehow mirrored in our world. This is Plato's classic doctrine of ideal forms. While this world may not be material it isn't exactly supernatural as most on this list would understand the term. Heaven would look a lot less like the Bible and more like your high school geometry textbook.

Another answer I would say is that this is just reasoning by analogy. The triangle from the geometry textbooks has properties like the imaginary ideal triangle hence that imaginary triangle helps us make true statements about the real life one. Like any analogy there are differences between the two so the question is practicality. Is the real triangle enough like the imaginary one for us to use the imaginary one as a 'blueprint' or 'map' to the real one?

Now the meat of Joe's argument:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.

(1) Simple circular reasoning. An example is found in a comment made by Matthew Goggins, "If we see brains that appear to be produced by non-rational processes, such as evolution, we can therefore conclude that rational things or beings are indeed produced by non-rational processes. There is no reason to think otherwise." Obviously, simply assuming that our brains appear to be produced by non-rational processes does not serve as evidence for that claim.

Let's first ask what Joe means by non-rational. Let's assume the universe is rational. That the rules of logic can be applied to the material universe and yield more truthful results than other methods such as simply guessing.
If rationality applies to the universe then it isn't surprising that evolution would find an advantage in an ability to think rationally. It's interesting when looking at the four F's most humans manage to do pretty well at them. Many people have irrational beliefs. They believe UFOs are real, that the horescope in the newspaper is real, that lucky numbers can help them win the lottery, that Oliver Stone was more correct about who killed Kennedy than the Warren Commission etc.

Yet when it comes to the four F's humans seem very good at true beliefs. Even crazy people, with few exceptions, manage to be sane enough to avoid walking in front of traffic or sleeping on railroad tracks or trying to eat rusty nails. When we get to beliefs that are more removed from the 'four F's' it's clear that we tend to start running into trouble. It takes more work to apply our 'rational brains' to problems that are less directly related to the 'four F's'...which is why we have to spend so much time educating ourselves, seeking out experts and so on.

What Joe stumbles upon in this argument is an act of materialist (and also for most non-materialists as well) faith. We assume the universe itself is rational. Joe did this back in the Kalam argument post where he argued everything that has a beginning must have a cause (in other words there are no uncaused effects). This, though, is nothing more than a working assumption and by working assumption I mean just that. It is an assumption that so far seems to work, nothing more. As David Hume pointed out, there's no way we can prove that tomorrow cause and effect won't flip on its head, that causes even really exist. The universe may suddenly become irrational tomorrow (or maybe it is irrational today and we just happen to have been looking at a tiny island of rationality).

14

Far from engaging in circular reasoning, you are just alluding to the vast amount of empirical evidence which supports the non-rational design of the rational.

I'd like to know what exactly is meant here by non-rational? If the universe is suspectible to logic, then non-intelligent systems like geology, physics, and so on are indeed rational so the 'struggle for survival' is hardly an irrational process. I suspect what Joe means here is 'non-intelligent' rather than non-rational.

Franklin
One possible response to Nokes' question (How can we imagine the non-material?) is that the question assumes something false. It assumes that we do imagine the non-material and then asks how, if materialism is true, this is possible. Perhaps the materialist ought to say that in fact we do not imagine the nonmaterial.

Good point. When we imagine a triangle are we really imagining a real triangle (which would be non-material since line segments have no width) or are we imagining a material triangle that isn't really the imaginary triangles discussed in geometry?

15

From Franklin Mason's first comment: "William Ramsey argues that Plantinga 'overlooks the most sensible way . . . to get clear on how truth can be a property of beliefs that bestows an advantage on cognitive systems'"

This is a point I raised the first time Joe put forth the nonsense that we can't trust our rationality if it arose arationally. Plantinga, Joe, and all sorts of theists ignore the point time and time again, revisiting their original assertion but not responding to the challenge to it. I think it is because they find it inconvenient to part with something they consider unassailable despite strong arguments to the contrary.

Don't bother them with the real world, they seem to say; they have made up their mind that rationality cannot emerge arationally.

16

I would argue that the process of evolution is extremely rational. It isn't a blind, random process insofar as natural selection is concerned. The University of Florida recently determined the number of joules required to produce a random mutation, and it's a very large number. In practice, this is experienced across the surface of the Earth in the form of solar radiation which splits and snaps the genes of living organisms.

That gives opportunities for random changes, as do many other things, but, once any changes are enacted, the test of whether the mutation is beneficial or not plays out against each affected organism's phenotype. If a third arm is good, we'll eventually all have third arms.

In that living things struggle to live and adapt to their environments, I don't see how natural selection can be viewed as a non-rational or irrational process. It is directed, toward success.

How DNA came to be extant is a very good question, and one we have yet to explain. A Creator would be an extremely convenient agency to be sure, but, given our ability to arrive at viable explanations for most other things, it's reasonable to assume that eventually we'll find a materialistically sound understanding of this as well. Rather than terming this a "leap of faith," I'd be more inclined to name it a recognition of the fact that things generally have non-supernatural explanations - and that most things that have had supernatural explanations now have materialistic ones.

Given this pattern, it seems recalcitrant to engineer sophistic arguments that burst in the air like so many holiday semantic bottle rockets. "Why do we perceive truth?" These little bon mots have absolutely zero to do with atheism and everything to do with religiosity. So spare us the sham.

17

Wednesday I caught a little piece of Sean Hannity's radio show where he read a news item about a teacher who was fired. This teacher would dip his naked bum in paint and wipe it accross a canvas. This art would sell for $900+ a painting.

Interesting, a rational beign can create something that is essentially irrational....in this case irrational would mean essentially random. Therefore why would it not be possible for an irrational system to possibly produce a rational result?

Joe has a core of an argument here, an assumption on "faith" that the universe operates by essentially rational processes or rules. This is only a working assumption and nothing more but just assume for a moment it is true. Wouldn't the ability to think rationally thereby confer a survival advantage on any creature who happened to possess it?

What would be impressive is an ability to formulate true metaphysical beliefs. Metaphysical meaning outside the universe. It would be pretty implausible, for example, to just guess that a single God in three forms exists apart from the Universe and created it. This is why Christians call this revelation, meaning it came into our universe and told us a bit about what's beyond...

But what evidence is there that we do have any exceptional ability to formulate true beliefs about metaphysics? By definition such beliefs cannot be tested within the confines of our physical universe so there is no way to know if our ability to form true beliefs is exceptionally good or bad.

I suspect our ability in this area is exceptionally bad if anything. Even within our universe we have a hard time grasping things that are true but beyond our everyday experience such as time itself is an attribute of space so there was no time 'before' the Big Bang as we know it. I see no reason to believe that our ability to formulate beliefs on real metaphysical matters is any good at all.

18

Franklin William Ramsey argues that Plantinga "overlooks the most sensible way . . . to get clear on how truth can be a property of beliefs that bestows an advantage on cognitive systems" (16). Roughly, the best explanation of why the relevant sort of creature, when successful, finds food, avoids predators, spots a mate, is that it possesses accurate beliefs (or accurate "maps by which [to] steer") as regards various objects' location, trajectory and character.

Even though Ramsey sidesteps, rather than addresses, Plantinga’s argument, there are two ways we could respond. First, while it might be reasonable to assume that beliefs related to survival would bestow an advantage, why would we assume that beliefs unrelated to survival would be true? Avoiding predators is one thing. It has a real survival advantage. But what about abstract truths, such as those related to morals or mathematics? Would reason would we have for believing those to be true?

Second, why would beliefs be necessary at all? Most of the animal kingdom manages to survive without any of the doxastic states or abilities to reason that humans possesses. If our sole purpose was to survive, instinct would be the “most sensible way.” Beliefs can be faulty, which can lead to decreased advantage.

They say that it is nonspatial and nontemporal.

Yes, but that posses the same problems as non-material. According to materialism, we should not be able to imagine (is imagination material?) the nonspatial and nontemporal because we have no experience with it. If we are solely matter—meat machines—then everything that exists does so spatially and temporally. How is it that we are aware of such concepts when they do not exist in the real universe?

Evolution through natural selection (ETNS) does not include rational, guided selection as part of its hypothesis. So if ETNS is true, then rational guided selection is not necessary.

How can you determine that ETNS is true if it is not rationally guided? You can't just assume that we can have reliable reasoning ability for that is begging the question; that is the explanandum, the thing to be explained. You also cannot assume that ETNS is true without first explaining how your brain can make reliable determinations about "truth". That too is a question-begging assumption.

Hunh?

You want to claim that this premise is true:

Reason can be spontaneously created through non-rational processes.

This, however, is neither provable nor rational. How does ETNS create reliable noetic equipment? You have no answer to that question; you simply assume its truth. The fact remains, however, that even if your premise is true then it provides its own reason not to believe it.

It’s similar to the old “All Cretans are liars” paradox. If a Cretan tells you this then it is either not true and he can’t be trusted or it is true – which still means he can’t be trusted. Our brains are like Cretans!

Another problem is that you resort to special-pleading, claiming that non-rational processes can lead to reliable noetic equipment (i.e., the human brain) in humans but not in the rest of the universe. This seems extremely unlikely and provides yet another defeater to the argument.

Naturalism contradicted some of Darwin's most deeply held religious beliefs. Not so with me.

Naturalism contradicts your faith in reason.

LudVanB well actually when it "appears" to be a certain way AND the evidence available all support it "appearing" to be a certain way AND absolutely no evidence whatsoever exsits that refutes how it "appears" to be,then its quite rational to conclude that it works just as how it "appears" to. no politics required

Let me translate that for those who don’t speak the language of Illogic.

"well actually when we beg the question of the reliability of reason AND beg the question that the evidence available all support our question-begging assumption AND deny all evidence that cannot be squared with our question-begging assumption, then it is quite rational—using our irrational definition of reason--to conclude that it works just as how it "appears" to. no politics required"

Robert Duquette Bingo! The materialist would say that because it is entirely true, which is why all non-material explanations are suspect.

Is there a single materialist that doesn’t resort to question-begging? Is that like a requirement to be in the club?

The argument from cause assumes that time is a reality that spans the physical universe and the meta-physical, non-material realm, yet we know that time is a dimension of space-time, and is an artifact of this realm.

Translation: We know this is true because we first rely on the question-begging premise that our noetic equipment can be reliable.

Rob Ryan This is a point I raised the first time Joe put forth the nonsense that we can't trust our rationality if it arose arationally.

Sometimes I read a sentence and I wonder, “How can they say such things and expect us to take them seriously?” Rob says that is nonsense to assume that we can’t trust rationality even when it arises arationally.

Of course if I were to say that a rock provided me with a rational explanation for General Relativity you'd think I was insane. Yet for some reason, the magical power of evolution is able to do what cannot happen anywhere in the universe -- produce reason from non-reason.

But Rob just makes the assertion without explanation. What is his argument for his case? He has none. Nobody—not Franklin, or Matthew, or Rob—has even attempted to explain why we should assume that our noetic equipment is reliable when it comes from arational, non-purposeful, non-teleological sources. They just assume its truth. To them it is a foundational presupposition that needs no explanation, even though it is self-refuting.

It goes back to what I said the other day. The pattern of materialist thinking is:

(1) I want to believe A
(2) I want to believe B
(3) Therefore, A is compatible with B.

No argument is necessary. Just choose what you want to believe and – presto — your choosing has an alchemical affect that makes any two claims logically compatible! ; )

Raven I would argue that the process of evolution is extremely rational.

I thought Rob’s statement was the height of absurdity but somehow Raven managed to trump it. According to him, the process of evolution is able to reason! It isn't a “blind, random process” but a guided, purposeful process. He ignores what naturalists actually claim to believe in order to provide an anthropomorphization of a “natural” process.

Give it the ability to reason, guide, and make non-random choices and then of course natural selection can create reliable brains. That was It’s intent all along!

Good grief. Do you guys even realize how silly you sound? If you want to be consistent materialists just be Buddhists or something where it doesn't have to make logical sense. The fact is that materialism cannot be squared with modern science.

19

"Let me translate that for those who don’t speak the language of Illogic. "

what you re gonna speak christian?

"well actually when we beg the question of the reliability of reason AND beg the question that the evidence available all support our question-begging assumption AND deny all evidence that cannot be squared with our question-begging assumption, then it is quite rational—using our irrational definition of reason--to conclude that it works just as how it "appears" to. no politics required"

Reliability is established by predictability....an intelligent person would know this. as for the "deny all evidence that cannot be squared with our question-begging assumption" part of your comment,thats creationism 101 right there. i think your much confused sir.

20

"But what about abstract truths, such as those related to morals or mathematics? Would reason would we have for believing those to be true?"

Here Joe seems to assume that morality and mathematics impart no survival advantage. On what does he base this assumption?

"Most of the animal kingdom manages to survive without any of the doxastic states or abilities to reason that humans possesses."

And most of the animal kingdom survives without wings. Most survives without fangs and claws. Besides, the existence of "doxastic states or abilities to reason" does not indicate they are necessary to survival; it indicates that they do not present an insurmountable impediment to survival. And Joe has the temerity to assert that my statement was "the height of absurdity". Even given Joe's partiality to ill-founded hyperbole, this one has me shaking my head.

"Nobody—not Franklin, or Matthew, or Rob—has even attempted to explain why we should assume that our noetic equipment is reliable when it comes from arational, non-purposeful, non-teleological sources."

Actually, I have done this on this blog, as I indicated in my first comment. I will find it in the archives and direct you to it when I have time. I don't think you ever responded to it. The short answer is this, though: it works.

21

First, while it might be reasonable to assume that beliefs related to survival would bestow an advantage, why would we assume that beliefs unrelated to survival would be true? Avoiding predators is one thing. It has a real survival advantage. But what about abstract truths, such as those related to morals or mathematics? Would reason would we have for believing those to be true?

First Joe should note that sometimes even a false belief may have a survival benefit. A favorite counter-argument to atheism runs something like "who cares if God exists, if people believe he does they will be less inclined to committ mayham". Needless to say Santa Clause is a nice example of another false belief that confers a survival benefit for overworked parents. In fact, what is the placeabo effect if not a false belief that confers a benefit?

Joe admits that if 'abstract truths' such as mathematics or morals contribute to survival there's no real problem seeing how evolution might have contributed to their origin.

Then how about beliefs that have nothing to do with survival? One would suspect that their relation to truth would be random and in fact they often seem to be. There are plenty of people who believe silly things who go about their everyday business just fine because their beliefs have no impact on their survival. Does it matter if Madonna believes in the Kaballa or your next door neighbor believes JFK was shot by Richard Nixon's nephew?

We have no special reason to beleive such beliefs are true. Before we offer any ground to such beliefs we usually demand that they be rigerously demonstrated by the rational tools we use to evaluate beliefs that do impact our ability to accomplish the 'four F's'. AS I said before this does use an implicit assumption that the universe (and beyond) is rational. This is only an assumption which we cannot prove to be true.

22

Joe,

If we are solely matter—meat machines—then everything that exists does so spatially and temporally. How is it that we are aware of [non-spatial and non-temporal] concepts when they do not exist in the real universe?

A hammer is designed to hammer nails, and it is a very useful tool for doing so.

However, a hammer can used for all kinds of things: general destruction, an object for tossing in a sporting competition, meat tenderizer, paperweight -- the possibilities are endless.

Likewise, the brain seems to have evolved in response to environmental pressures to successfully hunt, gather, avoid being hunted, and reproduce. And our brains are very useful tools for doing all that.

However, once we have these useful brains, we can use them for whatever ends we choose. If we choose to think about possibilities that are not part of our daily lives, we can assign our brains to attack that job.

How can you determine that ETNS is true if it is not rationally guided?

Joe, wouldn't you agree that 99.999% of all scientific hypotheses are not rationally guided? Do gravitational or electromagnetic laws need some kind of intelligent personal agency to produce their results?

Perhaps we cannot rely on our primate minds to determine that anything at all is true or false. But at the very least, scientific theories and facts seem to correspond with the underlying reality of our world.

Somehow our clumsy, partially irrational minds have been able to find and to grasp a special tool, the scientific method, which has proven to be a powerful probe for teasing out truths (or apparent truths) from the universe.

How do I know this?

Because science has revolutionized the whole world over the past couple of centuries by discovering regular patterns of natural phenomena and by allowing us to develop all kinds of amazing technology (electronics, agriculture, medicine, telecommunications, weaponry, etc. etc. etc.).

You can't just assume that we can have reliable reasoning ability for that is begging the question; that is the explanandum, the thing to be explained.

What I said is that if evolution is true (which is what, based on the evidence, I would conclude), then "to the extent that our brains are capable of being rational, [then] rational brains have been designed and produced by the non-rational processes of evolution." In other words, if we do have reliable reasoning ability, then the source of that ability would have to be evolution, since evolution is the source of us.

I did not address the question of whether we actually do have reliable reasoning ability. I would agree with you that if we do not have reliable reasoning ability, then that could pose a huge problem for evolutionary theory, for the simple reason that all theories would be impossible for us to judge, since we wouldn't be able to reliably judge anything.

But in that case, it wouldn't just be human-generated theories, such as ETNS, that would impossible for us to judge. Any theory at all, including the allegedly divine theology and cosmology of the Bible, would be impossible for us to judge as well.

By addressing my comments, you are making a tacit assumption that both you and I have enough reliable reasoning ability to hold a conversation. If there is a hole in my reasoning, if my reasoning ability is unreliable in some way, then the least you could do is locate a fallacy in my argument and highlight it for us see and examine.

A general philosophical objection on the grounds that all human reasoning is unreliable is not a valid argument, because it cuts just as strongly against your position as it does mine, unless you can show where my reasoning is specifically unreliable.

Even if it turns out that human minds are unreliable, the evidence that establishes ETNS is not the product of human minds, it is stuff out there in the real world that our pathetic irrational minds have managed to stumble across in spite of themselves.

You also cannot assume that ETNS is true without first explaining how your brain can make reliable determinations about "truth". That too is a question-begging assumption.

I don't assume that ETNS is true.

I conclude ETNS is true because the available evidence appears to lead inexorably to that conclusion.

I admit I could be wrong, but I won't admit that I am wrong until someone can explain to my why I am wrong.

You are saying that anyone who asserts anything at all (such as the "sun is hot") is making a "question-begging assumption" unless he can first demonstrate that it is possible that brains can determine the truth.

Of course, not only is that a very unreasonable standard to require, it happens to be a strictly impossible standard as well: any demonstration of the possiblility of our brains' capability to determine the truth would require us to assume in the first place that our brains could reliably entertain such a discussion -- we're still "begging the question" no matter what we attempt to demonstrate!

How does ETNS create reliable noetic equipment? You have no answer to that question; you simply assume its truth.

Here's my answer:

We have "noetic equipment" -- our brains and nervous systems. Perhaps it is reliable, perhaps it is not, although I think we should all be able to stipulate for the sake of argument that sometimes it is reliable and sometimes it is not so reliable. If we can't stipulate that, then it makes no sense at all to discuss anything, and that includes Jesus and the Bible as well.

ETNS has designed and created our noetic equipment because it has designed and created all life on earth. [ As noted above, I don't assume this. I know this independently of our discussion, based on the evidence that is out there in the real world and which has been elaborated upon at great length by scientists. ] Since ETNS has created our noetic equipment, then if that noetic equipment is reliable, then it is also true that ETNS has created reliable noetic equipment.

Scientists have tried to figure out the exact historical way in which ETNS created our noetic equipment. If you are really (as opposed to rhetorically) curious as to how ETNS could have done this, you can read about the latest scientific research. But of course, the latest research has not yet been proven true, it is still relatively speculative.

So unfortunately, the answer to your question "How did ETNS do it?" is "I don't know." Or if you prefer, my answer is, "I don't know specifically or in precise detail, I just know in general terms."

So if I say, "I don't know", does that mean you are justified in saying I have no answer?

I would say no.

Let's say that I tell you the sun is hot, and then you ask me, "How is the sun hot?" Let's say I tell you, "I don't know how the sun is hot, I just know that we have measured its temperature and it is 10,000 degrees (at the surface)."

Does that mean the sun isn't hot, because I don't have an explanation?

Let's say I tell you, "The sun is hot because it is a vast ball of hydrogen plasma which is steadily creating helium through nuclear fusion which releases tremendous amounts of energy." And let's say you ask me, "How does hydrogen in the sun fuse into helium?", and I say "I don't know anything about that." Does that mean hydrogen does not fuse into helium? Does it mean that the sun isn't hot?

I would say no. What would you say?

It’s similar to the old “All Cretans are liars” paradox. If a Cretan tells you this then it is either not true and he can’t be trusted or it is true – which still means he can’t be trusted. Our brains are like Cretans!

If you think I am too unreliable to make a judgement on the theory of ETNS, then that is perfectly reasonable on your part. I would admit that it is possible that you are correct and I am mistaken.

If you think that ETNS is false because it is a human-generated theory which is not mentioned in the Bible, then I would say that your logic is good, but your assumptions are faulty (namely that the Bible is more reliable than the theory of ETNS).

If you think that it is logically impossible for ETNS to be true because of the "All Cretans are liars" paradox, then I would point out that your logic is fatally flawed. Here's why:

The liars paradox shows us that some statements are logically self-contradictory. For example, "This statement is true and this statement is false" is a logically self-contradictory statement. Therefore, the mere fact that you or I can make a statement does not prove that the statement is not self-contradictory.

So if I say, "The non-rational can produce the rational," it is possible that my statement is logically self-contradictory even though it is not immediately obvious that my statement is self-contradictory.

Or if I say, "My brain is rational and has been produced by a non-rational process," it is possible that my statement is self-contradictory.

However, if you do a logical analysis of my statements about the brain and evolution, it turns out that they are not logically self-contradictory. My statements may be false if my assertions are false -- if either ETNS is false or if "our brains are rational" is false. But if both assertions are true, then my statements are both logical and correct.

Another problem is that you resort to special-pleading, claiming that non-rational processes can lead to reliable noetic equipment (i.e., the human brain) in humans but not in the rest of the universe. This seems extremely unlikely and provides yet another defeater to the argument.

I didn't say that.

I said, in comments 26 and 33 of Tuesday's comment thread, that "belief-generating material must not only be incorporated into a living being -- it must be incorporated into a living being with a brain."

I would also say that any matter, anywhere in the universe, that becomes part of the rational brain of a living creature is capable of being rational. I don't know where in the universe that is besides here, but I am not resorting to special pleading. I would not be surprised if rational beings existed on other planets.

Naturalism contradicts your faith in reason.

Your argument against naturalism wasn't that it contradicted reason. Your argument against naturalism was that is assumed reason existed.

My argument has been that:

1) ETNS, a non-rational process, appears to be true.
2) Our brains appear be rational (at least sometimes).
3) Therefore, a non-rational process, ETNS, appears to have produced a rational thing (our brains).

As I said above, if my first two steps are incorrect, then my argument is incorrect. But that doesn't mean I am making a bold stand on behalf of irrationality, it just means I am mistaken.

On the other hand, if I understand corectly what you are saying, you are assuming that a non-rational process, such as ETNS, is a priori incapable of producing a rational object, such as our brains. In other words, I am being open to something that you have rejected out of hand.

Maybe you are correct to reject out of hand that a non-rational process could produce a rational object, but you haven't explained to me why that is so. I can't agree with you until someone explains why your objection is correct.

Joe, this question of the non-rational producing the rational seems to be a sensitive point for you. You seem particularly frustrated that some of us think it is true.

I would guess that you feel that if our rationality has not been established by the will of God, it will prove to be imperfect and thoroughly suspect. You don't have confidence in the power of ETNS to produce a brain we should feel comfortable with.

I don't think our brains are close to being perfect. Our brains do many things well, and do many things poorly. But I don't think ETNS is the big cognitive tragedy you might think it is.

After all, if ETNS is true, it is true because that is the way God decided let nature run its course.

And if God doesn't exist, then you and I and the rest of the universe apparently didn't need God in the first place.

The only real drawback to no God is that there is no life after death. But my perspective on that is that we are very fortunate to be alive right now, so try to be happy about it and make the most of what time that we have.

You might not think our lives have purpose if they are transient. I would remind you of the words of the preacher:

Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?
[ Eccles. 3:22 ]

Cheers,
Matthew

23

Joe, wouldn't you agree that 99.999% of all scientific hypotheses are not rationally guided? Do gravitational or electromagnetic laws need some kind of intelligent personal agency to produce their results?

Again I plea for Joe or someone to tell us what is meant by 'rational'. As far as I know gravity, chemistry etc. all appear to follow very regular and consistent rules. That seems pretty rational to me. However here rational seems to mean 'intelligent' or worse 'acting with a personality'.

So here what does rational mean? If it means that it obeys a consistent set of rules then what's the argument about? If nature follows a consistent set of rules then creatures that do a better job of formulating true beliefs about those rules will clearly have an advantage.

Here though Joe seems to often equate irrational with probability. But probability follows a consistent set of rules very well so why is it irrational?

24

So here what does rational mean?

Y'know, Boonton, I had the same question - glad you asked it. In my response to Joe, I indicated that ETNS was arguably rational and he went off on a tirade about how I had claimed that natural selection was some kind of intelligent agency. Ergo, he must be equating "rational" not with, "orderly, following regular, predictable processes and laws," or something of that nature, but rather with "rational actor."

Like "doxastic," "non-teleological," and "reliable belief-forming apparatus," this appears to be a specialized usage. Not unlike the way you'd dress up a cheap tramp in order to sneak her into a swanky cocktail party.

More to the point, I would contend that if a Biblical understanding of reality was intuitively obvious, that if the supernatural agent(s) involved was indeed "lord of lords," "host of hosts," etc., capable of the claims made for it, then one should be able to apprehend it sans recourse to sophistic tap dancing and purile semantic gymnastics. In other words, you can't get there from inference.

To the simpleton, "but everything had to have a beginning" is apparently suasive. Anyone familiar with cosmological physics knows better. By the way, "naturalism" is being hauled out here for a drubbing, so I figured I'd take a look at what this term means (I'd never heard of it before). From the wiki entry:

Naturalism (philosophy): Any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural, are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses

Well, given this definition, I'd say, "sign me up!" The other side, the non-naturalists, are hereby invited to present their proof that supernatural phenomena exist. Believing that they do is fine. Wishing that they do is fine. Hoping that they do is fine. But arguing that they do and that proof exists for the assertion is not, however, fine.

25

The Raven,

Not unlike the way you'd dress up a cheap tramp in order to sneak her into a swanky cocktail party.

I understand your point, and I appreciate your colorful use of language.

However, I detect something here that is a little off-putting.

Debate is great sport, and it is satisfying and gratifying to believe that one has caught out one's interlocutor in an error.

But there is a higher purpose to debate that is ill-served by the emotionally-satisfying put-downs that are meant to highlight the apparent deficiencies of our partners in debate. As I have mentioned before on several comment threads, I believe the best ends of debate and discussion are the advancement of mutual respect and understanding, and if one is persistent and lucky enough, the achievement of a better approximation of the truth.

To lob demeaning rhetoric -- "dress up a cheap tramp ..." -- in the direction of Joe Carter is rude. It highlights your point in a clever way, but it also detracts from both the soberness and the appeal that your overall position might otherwise have. It hinders the mutual struggle for truth by distracting us from the real merits of each of our arguments. But most important of all, it is just likely to be at least a little offensive to Joe, and Joe has a right to be treated better than that. (It is also likely to be offensive to some of his readers.)

Even if you have close to zero respect for what Joe is saying (and I don't imagine that you do), we should all have respect for the time and energy he puts into the Evangelical Outpost. It's a wonderful blog. Joe manages to consistently post a lot of great stuff, and it's great forum for his readers to boot.

I know it can be hard to edit out a bon mot when it seems particularly clever/insightful/humorous, but if there is any malice lurking within it, it's the right call to make.

Of course, I'm sure you could find some mean-spiritied things that I've written if you wanted to dig around in my comments. But it wouldn't be my best material.

All the best,
Matthew

26

Joe says: Reason can be spontaneously created through non-rational processes. This, however, is neither provable nor rational. How does ETNS create reliable noetic equipment? You have no answer to that question; you simply assume its truth. The fact remains, however, that even if your premise is true then it provides its own reason not to believe it.

It’s similar to the old “All Cretans are liars” paradox. If a Cretan tells you this then it is either not true and he can’t be trusted or it is true – which still means he can’t be trusted. Our brains are like Cretans!

I don't understand the difficulty of positing that reason can result from non-reason, assuming that what you mean by reason is conscious intent. This is where I assume you are using Plato's theory of forms as a foundation for your argument - there is an eternal form for matter and an eternal form for consciousness, or noetic doxatic whatever high sounding term you want to use to wow us with your knowledge. Just as horses participate in the horseness of the eternal horse form, and matter follows its form, thus reason must follow its form. If I'm off on a tangent let me know, but I can't figure out any other way to arrive at your conclusion that unthinking physical processes can't result in thinking. How do we know that they can't? There is no logical reason they can't, I'd say that it is your thesis that requires special pleading.

Another problem is that you resort to special-pleading, claiming that non-rational processes can lead to reliable noetic equipment (i.e., the human brain) in humans but not in the rest of the universe. This seems extremely unlikely and provides yet another defeater to the argument.

You mean that people made of matter can reason but other things made of matter, like trees and rocks and jellybeans can't? Because being made of matter is a necessary but not a sufficient cause. It's all about the right arrangement, there is nothing about that that breaks the rules of logic. Why is it that black holes can give off gamma rays but people can't? Matter is one, correct? Doesn't this fall into the same category?

Materialism may be wrong, but you haven't demonstrated anything that proves it is illogical based on the knowledge that we posess about the universe at present.

27

Here Joe seems to assume that morality and mathematics impart no survival advantage. On what does he base this assumption?

Of course the problem is that everything that survives imparts a survival advantage. So, since "moral" people survive, "morality" imparts a survival advantage, but at the same time, "immoral" people also survive, so "immorality" must also impart a survival advantage. The same can be said for the ability to understand basic or advanced math or anything else for that matter. So what you have is all these contradictory things that all seem to provide a survival advantage, in essence everything provides a survival advantage, which means that nothing really provides a survival advantage.

28

Except if we are talking about evolution the trait must be clearly inherited. If one individual hoarse can talk no doubt he will do a great job at surviving but if he can't pass on the ability to talk to his children it won't make any difference in the long run.

The ability to reason does appear to be a human trait that is passed on from parent to child. By reason I mean to use observation, deduction, inference and other logical tools to make statements about reality that are either true or true enough to aid in survival.

Whether a trait aids in survival is not tested by simply noting that individuals who have or lack the trait survive. One would have to test it the same way you test whether a drug cures a disease or not. Find two similiar populations, one with and one without the trait and measure them on various metrics of evolutionary success. There are a few humans who have no ability to reason at all and the difference there is so extreme I doubt you could serious question whether or not reasoning ability is related to sucess in humans.

Now just because something works in one species doesn't mean it always works. Humans pay a big price for reasononig. I think our brain alone consumes something like 20% of all the energy we intake. We need a long period of nurturing by other humans before we are ready to really use our reasoning. For many other animals it is better to go with a minimial brain and put all the energy into action.

The best analogy might be market economics. There are small businesses that are successes, small ones that fail and ditto for large ones. What might be a good trait for one type of business could be a liability for another. Nonetheless there are objective traits that we can say either help or harm businesses making some more or less successful than others.

29

So, since "moral" people survive, "morality" imparts a survival advantage, but at the same time, "immoral" people also survive, so "immorality" must also impart a survival advantage.

How can morality and immorality both impart a survival advantage? Why is it that a car comes with an accelerator and a brake? What's the purpose of a car, to go or to stop?

Survival is enhanced by a combination of selfish and altruistic behaviors. Think of a structure, like a bridge. You want stability, so you add members to it that pull it in different directions. It acheives stability through dynamic tension, which in Joe's simplistic logic is an absurdity, since opposites can never be reconciled, for all things are one.

30

How can morality and immorality both impart a survival advantage?

I don't think they do, but if you want to argue that one does (as Rob Ryan does in post #20), how you can argue that the other doesn't since there seems to be no shortage of either type of people. Rob also seems to think that (the ability to learn?) math seems to impart a survival advantage, but if that were true you would think that people who have good math ability would outbreed those that don't, but I don't think that is the case.

31

"How can morality and immorality both impart a survival advantage?"

This question is far too imprecise to have any value. "Survival", in this question, is quite well defined. It means passing on genes. However, "morality" and "immorality" are not. For example, a number of christians would argue that pre-marital sex undertaken regularly and with different partners would be considered "immoral". Yet, it might be a good strategy for "survival".

All too often christian apologists forget that when they try to co opt science for religious purposes you can't use the idea of science in the same sloppy ways they tend to use reasoning to argue for the existence of their deity.

32

All too often christian apologists forget that when they try to co opt science for religious purposes you can't use the idea of science in the same sloppy ways they tend to use reasoning to argue for the existence of their deity.

Except in this case it is the atheist (Rob Ryan) seeming to argue that "morality" imparts some sort of survival advantage and the "Christian apologist" (me) that isn't buying it. But for a materialist how can you argue that "morality" doesn't impart a survival advantage? If all thoughts are merely properties of the matter that makes up the brain, then the brain must be built for "morals". Hence, the mechanism that tells the brain to organize so that it can experience "morals" must supply some sort of survival advantage, otherwise it wouldn't survive.

33

This question is far too imprecise to have any value. "Survival", in this question, is quite well defined. It means passing on genes. However, "morality" and "immorality" are not. For example, a number of christians would argue that pre-marital sex undertaken regularly and with different partners would be considered "immoral". Yet, it might be a good strategy for "survival".

Even here the question remains seriously flawed. Except for the possibility of an inherited mental disorder no one would consider having numerous pre-marital sexual encounters to be a trait that is inherited. What we could consider an inherited trait is the ability to decide when, where and how to have sex depending upon the circumstances. This would be in constrast to many animals whose mating habits are more set on a type of automatic pilot.

For humans this is a good survival trait because we are already heavily invested in a big brain so discretion in mating allows us to time events to make the most of them. For animals without a big brain, though, the better strategy is to probably have a few preset, hard wired rules for mating (such as a period of going into heat).

ucfengr
Hence, the mechanism that tells the brain to organize so that it can experience "morals" must supply some sort of survival advantage, otherwise it wouldn't survive.

I think what you're confusing here is whether a particular moral decision imparts a survival advantage versus whether the ability to make moral decisions is itself an overall survival advantage. There are cases where certain moral decisions hurt an individual's survival chances...for example offering onesself up for the sake of another or say a Christian Scientist refusing medical care. But the fact is morals themselves are generally geared towards promoting survival. Look at Jewish law, for example. Preserving life is an overriding imperative. So, for instance, it is ok to work on the Sabbath if it is necessary to protect life (such as a police officer or doctor). Muslim laws allow those who are sick to break the fasting on Ramadan.

Would you seriously try to argue that humans as a whole are worse off in a material sense because they have 'morals'?

34

Humans' ability to think about morals probably offers positive survival strategies. Our ability to act on our ability to organize thoughts into good and bad does the same I presume. But we are not guaging the ability of one particular moral or immoral position to help us survive when we say that, essentially, having a big brain allows us to survive better.

"But for a materialist how can you argue that "morality" doesn't impart a survival advantage?"

I can't. But only because I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "Morality". If you are talking about "being good" then the question is without merit as we are not talking about anything specific.

One has to take every individual moral and ethical rule on its own and evaluate it. And in many cases, as someone pointed out, these individual rules may not be inherited genetic traits.

35

I think what you're confusing here is whether a particular moral decision imparts a survival advantage versus whether the ability to make moral decisions is itself an overall survival advantage.

No, I am not. I understand the difference.

Would you seriously try to argue that humans as a whole are worse off in a material sense because they have 'morals'?

I think you are the one confused here. Something that imparts a survival advantage is simply something that improves a particular organism's chance of surviving long enough to spread it's genes. So in that sense it could be argued that both "morality" and "immorality" offer a survival advantage, since people with either trait seem to survive long enough to breed. But the reality is it really doesn't matter because our "morals" are just the product of the blind forces of evolution on the chemical processes of our brain. We have no more control over them then we do over feeling hungry or thirsty.

36

ucfengr,

Something that imparts a survival advantage is simply something that improves a particular organism's chance of surviving long enough to spread it's genes.

This is fine...but...

So in that sense it could be argued that both "morality" and "immorality" offer a survival advantage, since people with either trait seem to survive long enough to breed.

There is only evolutionary relevance if what you are describing is an inherited trait. To my knowledge there is no gene that you inherit that makes your moral or immoral. What does appear to be inherited is an ability to make decisions on the fly rather than by instinct. So the only trait you can really analyze is the ability to make decisions versus inability to make decisions. On a scorecard you can put pluses and minuses for each as it impacts survival (making decisions uses more energy for the brain would be an example of a minus) but I think it's pretty clear for humans it is a powerful plus for survival.

37

"Except in this case it is the atheist (Rob Ryan) seeming to argue that "morality" imparts some sort of survival advantage and the "Christian apologist" (me) that isn't buying it."

Let's be careful here, ucfengr; I believe I merely questioned Joe's assumption that morals can not provide a survival advantage. That is not self evident. Also, we mustn't conclude that if morals impart a survival advantage that the converse is true, that immorality imparts a disadvantage. I suspect that some behavior most people would call immoral imparts an advantage, and some most people would call moral imparts a disadvantage. We must bear in mind that morality is subjective, and not monolithic or immutable. It is helpful to think of it this way: within the set of behaviors conducive to passing on one's genes is a significant subset of behaviors most people would deem moral.

"Of course the problem is that everything that survives imparts a survival advantage."

Really? What survival advantage does Down Syndrome impart? It persists in a remarkably consistent percentage of the population, despite the fact that very few of these people reproduce.

"Hence, the mechanism that tells the brain to organize so that it can experience "morals" must supply some sort of survival advantage, otherwise it wouldn't survive."

Not necessarily; perhaps you missed the rest of my comment: "Besides, the existence of 'doxastic states or abilities to reason' does not indicate they are necessary to survival; it indicates that they do not present an insurmountable impediment to survival." For a trait to survive, it is only necessary that it does not present an insuperable disadvantage.

38

A good point Rob, one additional comment

Really? What survival advantage does Down Syndrome impart? It persists in a remarkably consistent percentage of the population, despite the fact that very few of these people reproduce.

A trait that is a negative towards survival can persist if it happens to be a side effect of some other trait that is an overall positive. For example, humans probably suffer quite a bit of mental illness compared to other animals. At a very basic level this is a consquence of having a really complicated brain (more can go wrong).

This can persist because the positive trait offers more benefits than its companion negative trait. Evolution does not predict that all individuals or even species as a whole will be 'perfect'. In fact one would expect to see quite a few problem traits at any given time.

39

"A trait that is a negative towards survival can persist if it happens to be a side effect of some other trait that is an overall positive...

This can persist because the positive trait offers more benefits than its companion negative trait."

True, Boonton, and I did not mean to imply that negative traits could not be by-products of or accompanists to positive traits. Indeed, the mutation responsible for sickle-cell anemia seems to provide protection from certain nasty tropical maladies.

40

Nobody—not Franklin, or Matthew, or Rob—has even attempted to explain why we should assume that our noetic equipment is reliable when it comes from arational, non-purposeful, non-teleological sources.

I thought Conway's Game of Life made this easy to see. With the right starting pattern you can set up OR-gates and AND-gates and have a rational computer, a Turing machine of sorts. What the physical rules of the game are that make the gates arise doesn't matter. The way you determine the rational calculator is reliable is by testing it -- does 2 + 2 = 4. A priori I have no reason to believe the fluctuating dots can do math, but after testing them out -- sure.

Myself, I don't care if the logic that comes out this way is "true", as long as it's true in every way that I can check. I don't even see any need for the word "true" unless you want to prove things you can't check, ie, God.

I will say that I don't understand Nokes' astonishment at our ability to imagine the non-material. Take a mind that imagines material causes for everything, and present it with something that it can't see the cause for. Like a leaf blowing, or an animal moving without anything pushing it. It isn't a huge fifth-dimensional leap to postulate that something invisible or outright immaterial exists to cause this. Belief in the immaterial should be natural in a species where other individuals are so clearly motivated by internal, invisible "minds."

41

Hmm, I just found this interview touching on this same topic.

The reason why we find it possible to construct, say, electronic calculators, and indeed why we can perform mental arithmetic, cannot be found in mathematics or logic. The reason is that the laws of physics "happen" to permit the existence of physical models for the operations of arithmetic such as addition, subtraction and multiplication.

But Joe is not asking, "why should they permit this?", he's asking, "Who says that they do?" Which is pretty impossible to answer.

42

Glad to see such discussions taking place with an understanding that folks shouldn't throw bricks at commentors who they don't agree with.

We are trying to do the same thing in a totally neutral environment over at http://godvsnogod.blogspot.com

We invite participation from all naturalists, Christians, Jews, Bible believers, and Christian naturalists.

This particular post took me a while to get my mind around, but I didn't see anyone comment as to C.S. Lewis's statement with regard to certain morality seeming to be universal or nearly so (some psychopaths notwithstanding.)

How would such a universal understanding of morality even among diverse groups that had no contact with other human societies come into being naturally.

Moreover, I agree with a commentor above, that other rules of nature (gravity, etc.) are harder to explain as to origins or how they do remain consistant without intelligent forces to keep the rules from changing.

43

No justification for science, except this: It works.

The ability of the fundamentalist mind to completely overlook the obvious, to deny both the forest and the trees, is a truly amazing thing to behold.