Several years ago while I was stationed in Japan I had the opportunity to travel to Guam where I was able to visit a most peculiar landmark. Near the Talofofo River lay a small cave where Shoichi Yokoi, a Japanese soldier from WWII, hid after the U.S. forces occupied his country in 1945. When a pair of fisherman discovered him in 1972, he explained, “"We Japanese soldiers were told to prefer death to the disgrace of getting captured alive.” That singular, powerful belief motivated the Army Corporal to hide out for 27 years.
When the discussion of evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism comes up in discussion, I always think of Yokoi. Like the old soldier, many atheists would prefer death rather than give up their belief in these twin theories. As Richard Dawkins once said in his now famous quip, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Unfortunately for Dawkins, the exact opposite is true. For contrary to what is commonly believed, modern evolutionary theory (macroevolution) and philosophical naturalism are quite clearly incompatible.
Such a statement will likely come as a surprise to those who believe that philosophical naturalism (which claims that either supernatural beings do not exist or if they do that their existence is irrelevant) is a foundation for macroevolution. But these two concepts have been soundly rebutted since 1994 when Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga published “Warrant and Proper Function.”
Though I’ve discussed Plantinga’s explanation in a prior post (Trusting the Monkey Mind: Naturalism and our Noetic Equipment), my summary can hardly substitute for the complete 58-page argument made in "Naturalism Defeated." Still, the gist of the paper can be outlined rather simply:
1. If (naturalistic) evolution is true, then our cognitive faculties will have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation.
2. Assuming the truth of #1, we find that the ultimate purpose or function of our cognitive faculties, if they even have a purpose or function, will be survival - of individual, species, gene, or genotype.
3. If #1 and #2 are true then it is unlikely that our cognitive faculties have the production of true beliefs as a function.
4. If production of true beliefs is not a function of our cognitive faculties, we have no reason to trust that we can form true beliefs.
5. Therefore, we cannot claim that any belief, including a belief in the theory of macroevolution, is true.
Plantinga fleshes out the argument until we arrive at the conclusion that if naturalism and evolution (N&E) is true then we have no reason to trust that the belief that N&E is true. The combination of N&E becomes self-defeating, providing its own justification for believing that it isn’t true. The actual argument, of course, is more complex, though, certainly understandable by anyone willing to do a bit of “hard thinking.” After a decade of attempts, no philosopher has even come close to satisfactorily rebutting Plantinga’s paper.
But if believing in naturalistic macroevolution is irrational why do so many people continue to do so? There are, I believe, several reasons:
The first is that bad philosophical ideas are hard to kill. Take, for example, logical positivism, which was the leading philosophy of science from the 1920’s to the 1950’s. Logical positivists claimed that metaphysical statements are meaningless and that a statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false by means of experience. The obvious problem with this contention is that the claim itself is a metaphysical statement and, according to LP, would be meaningless. Smart philosophers often refuse to give up dumb ideas even when they are self-refuting.
The second reason why the connection is still believed is that those who deny naturalistic evolution do such a poor job of pointing out the fallacies of naturalism. While many philosophical naturalists have no qualms about claiming that theistic beliefs are unjustifiable, we are either hesitant to make the same claims or are unable to explain why we hold such a position. Even though some of the leading epistemologists in America are evangelical Christians, those of us in the trenches of debate have a poor grasp of the concepts involved. Our effectiveness would magnify exponentially if we would only spend a bit more time understanding the basic concepts of philosophy. For instance, I’ve often heard people waste time making the specious and unprovable claim that “naturalism is a religious belief” when all that really needs to be pointed out is that naturalism is irrational.
The third and most common reason is that it is difficult to convince someone that they hold an irrational belief. As Plantinga clearly shows, accepting that naturalistic evolution has developed in us cognitive faculties capable of producing true beliefs requires a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith.” Yet it is unlikely that the average naturalist will give up her belief without a fight. The reason isn’t because they are lacking in intellect but rather that they lacking in will. Our beliefs are not formed by reason alone and so are rarely changed solely by appeals to rationality. An obdurate will, rather than soft-headedness, is the primary reason why naturalists cling to self-refuting concepts.
Beliefs are perhaps the most powerful force on earth. Even now I still marvel that a simple belief kept Shoichi Yokoi living in a cave for 27 years. What is even more shocking, however, is that he knew in 1952 that the war had ended and yet continued to hide for 20 more years. Even when he knew the truth, his beliefs had so calcified that he was unable – or perhaps just unwilling – to change his behavior. The same could be said for naturalists. While they know they realize that they have no justification for trusting that evolution could produce a brain capable of forming true beliefs, they still go on trusting Darwin’s “monkey mind.” Like poor Yokoi, even the truth can't get them to leave their intellectual caves.
Good post, Joe. It's the problem with all naturalistic thought: ultimately, we can't know anything, because our thoughts are just randomly produced impulses. At the very least, that fact makes it impossible for an atheist to "disprove" the existence of God, since when taken to its logical conclusion naturalistic philosophy has no way to objectively verify "truth claims."
OK, maybe I'm a bit dim on this subject (hardly a revelation!) and I'm certainly no philosopher, but I'm having trouble understanding what exactly is meant by the phrase "true beliefs." I'm going to read as much of what you linked to as I can, in case it's explained there...
Hey Steve,
A “true belief” is simply a belief that happens to be true. For example, if I see a chair and believe that the piece of furniture is the color red, then I have a true belief if the chair is, in fact, that color. If I believe the chair is red when it is actually green, then I have a false belief. I may, for example, have a form of color blindness that causes me to think that the color green is actually red. Therefore, I would be unable to form “true beliefs” about the color of some chairs.
It seems to me that it's pretty easy to defend the assertion that forming true beliefs is a survival trait.
It's not that easy, though. Plantinga uses the example of Paul, the prehistoric hominid, who runs across a very hungry tiger. Evolution is only "concerned" with survival, so any scenario in which Paul runs away from the tiger instead of getting eaten by the tiger is going to be one where Paul survives. That means that behavior is way more important that beliefs when it comes to evolution. Plantinga says, "Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely that the tiger he sees will eat him." From the point of view of evolution, this scenario will lead to survival just as the scenario in which he runs away because he believes he will get eaten. And, given the fact that there are WAY more scenarios where false belief will lead to survival than true belief will lead to survival, this means that we have a defeater for evolutionism and naturalism.
Plantinga goes through the 4 different ways that beliefs and behaviors can be connected and argues that the probability of having rational cognitive faculties is low for all of them given evolutionism and naturalism.
That definition of "true belief" is very important because today in common discussion the phrase refers to a "sincere" belief, and has no bearing on whether or not the belief is factually correct. True beliefs are not beliefs that are sincerely held.
This is always my fundamental point in discussing any form of religious belief system. Who cares how sincere one is, if they believe an error. If Christianity were not true, and could not be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, I would have nothing to do with it.
Which I think puts me in good company since Jesus constantly used the word "truth" in what He taught. While the ancient philosophers were echoed by Pilate in asking "What is truth", Jesus not only proclaimed it in word, but He embodied it.
Hm, one thing about this bothers me mildly; the fact that if our brains evolved as a safety mechanism, they should be of little use for cosmic reasoning was a mainstay of CS Lewis' Miracles, which was published a long time before 1994. Perhaps he was cited?
I need more time to digest the post, but I do take exception to repeated use of the term "macroevolution." This is a term invented by the anti-evolutionists, because evolution has in fact been observed on a micro level, so they can't throw out the whole thing. "Macroevolution" is a convenient term to refer to the part that has not yet been proven to their satisfaction.
But to biologists, there's no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution," only "evolution." The process is the same, and it's only the scale that differs.
tgirsch, no they are not the same. microevolution is actually taught in the Bible. Everything reproduces after its kind.
Any biologist who does not recognize a difference between evolution inter-species and evolution intra-species (so to speak) is probably not worth listening to.
Most young children can relate to the idea of a DDT resistant mosquito for example, or a certain long-haired variety of animal thriving in cold climates over his short-haired brethren..
However, I like the Mt. Rushmore example. What child would believe that Mt. Rushmore is a result of natural processes of rain and erosion upon the rocks?
Yet, they are taught that the REAL Washington etc. resulted ultimately from rain upon rocks over millions of years...amazing. (Before anyone counters this last comment, make sure you read a 7th grade science book because that is the teaching - big bang, rain upon the rocks for millions of years, turned them into "soup" out of which ultimately sprung all life we now see)
This seems very close to C.S. Lewis' argument in MIRACLES, in a chapter entitled "The Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist". He defended the position in a somewhat famous debate in the Oxford Socratic Club (you can read about it in GOD IN THE DOCK). A woman philosopher named (if I recall rightly) Anstey (a practicing Roman Catholic) successfully criticized the argument. I've never been able to follow the gist of the reasoning, which turned on some fairly obscure points of language. In any case, Lewis felt compelled to re-write the chapter for the next edition, re-titling it "The Cardinal Difficulty of the Naturalist" (this change never found its way into American editions). I still think Lewis was right, but am not bright enough to critique Anstey's position.
I had already mentioned the Miracles argument... I am under a fairly stong impression that she was happy with his revised argument, by the by, as stated in the CS Lewis Encylopedia.
Steve_in_Carona:
Rushmore probably isn't the greatest example, primarily because we know exactly how it got there and who did it.
But I find it amusing that random changes filtered through the process of natural selection constitutes a weak or lacking explanation, yet "God did it" somehow explains everything and makes perfect sense. To borrow from my co-blogger Kevin, that's rather like when a child asks "Why?" and you answer "Because." It isn't really an answer at all.
The "Great Potato" episode of Dinsoaurs was perhaps the most brilliant take on this I've ever seen.
Ah, here it is.. Elizabeth Anscombe, Professor of Philosphy at Cambridge, and member of the Oxford Socratic club. According to the CS Lewis Encyclopedia, she was pleased with his revision for the 1960 paperback version of Miracles... also, she debated later with him, sort of, after his death.. the philosopher John Lucas presented his case, and Basil Mitchell, an observer, believed that the revised thesis held up, unlike the first.
CS Lewis also believed that all knowledge flowed from God, a position given great length and mind-bendign detail in Jonathon Dempski's book Intelligent Design...
"yet 'God did it' somehow explains everything and makes perfect sense."
I really think that secular humanists are perhaps the worst sort of group for using strawmen arguments... if you hadn't noticed, there is a great deal more to Christian thought than 'God did it'... as has been mentioned before...
I might as well say your position is "It just happened."
tgirsch, I think you missed my illustration. I specifically said CHILD, as in a young lad who has yet to learn what we know about who and when carved Rushmore.
Taking said child to said monument and saying that rain, natural processes like erosion and "millions of years" (the secret sauce) created that monument. No thinking child would agree to that proposition. It evidences design.
But the real Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and T. Roosevelt are supposed to have come into being by water added to rock mixed with "millions of years".
I will take your silence on the rest of my post as your nod of approval... :)
Good one Joe. I've been attempting to illustrate the inconsistencies inherent with believing in naturalism and also holding to any form of truth or morality. Typically an evolutionist will respond that they believe in virtuous behavior AND naturalism so, therefore, I am wrong... it's difficult to get them to see that my point is not that they claim to believe in both but that in claiming to believe in both they are being inconsistent.
BTW David, it's William Dembski who wrote Intelligent Design (and Jonathan Wells who wrote Icons of Evolution).
David Scott:
if you hadn't noticed, there is a great deal more to Christian thought than 'God did it'
Oh, indeed there is. Just nothing more to the "where did we come from" aspect of Christian thought. Or am I missing a detailed description of the mechanisms of creation, and why God bothered to make all life appear to be related when in fact it is not, etc.?
Seriously, what testable predictions can we make based on creation "theory?"
Steve_in_Carona:
I will take your silence on the rest of my post as your nod of approval...
Now you know better than that! Your complaint about the millions of years of rain and erosion blah blah blah is fairly complicated and the problem has largely to do with post hoc unlikelihood versus pre-specified unlikelihood. Dawkins' golf ball analogy is a good example of this. If you hit a golf ball and it lands on a particular blade of grass, how unlikely is it that of all the blades of grass it should land on that particular one. Indeed, it's highly unlikely. However, if you had specified in advance "I'm going to hit this golf ball and land it on that blade of grass" and then did so, that would indeed be interesting.
When we look at our origins, we're doing it through 20/20 hindsight. How unlikely it is that we should be the way we are! But we are, and that unlikeliness doesn't mean that supernatural processes had to be at work to make it so.
As for micro/macroevolution, all "macroevolution" is, put simply, is a series of microevolutions. If you concede that the so-called micro kind occurs but claim that the so-called macro kind is somehow absurd, I fail to see how you're drawing that conclusion.
I'll use the Sybase and Microsoft SQL Server databases as an example. At one time, they were the same product, and Microsoft and Sybase had a falling out, so they split. Both started with the same product and made incremental changes as their respective customer bases requested them. Over time, the two products became incompatible because of these incremental changes. How is this any different than the concept of speciation?
Yes, there are hands guiding the incremental changes in the software, but why couldn't the hand of God be guiding the incremental changes of evolution? Why do so many Christians seem to believe that evolution and Christian thought must somehow be mutually exclusive? That's not something I've ever understood.
More on the golf ball analogy, and the role of chance in the evolutionary process, is here.
Rusty,
Secular libertarian morality is not as glamorous, but probably just as effective. A morality based on abject fear of reprisal from a transcendental power will only last so long as the public believes in that power. As humanity moves toward a more abstract view of God the living Father, both a secular and religious base for morality are necessary. Face it, most people don't take literally that God is a father in the biological sense. God to most people doesn't have a penis or the other characteristics of males in appearance. If God's "true form" was humanoid then that would be one heck of a limited God.
See, secular libertarian morality appeals to humanity's instinct to want order. Libertarians say "look at these countries where people don't respect their neighbor's rights, they're changing governments like diapers and life is hell there." The secular libertarian morality for the government is a reduction down to the most basic elements of social order. We want a limited government that can enforce basic laws like murder and theft laws that everyone can agree on, but nothing more. That trickles down into our attitude toward our neighbor's rights. Our neighbor has a right to live by the sheer fact that we weren't born with a positive right to murder our neighbor. All the way down the line from rape and assault to robbery. We're not born empowered with the right to do those things to our fellow humans therefore we shouldn't do them.
As for number three, an ability to form true beliefs is absolutely necessary for survival. If human beings formed the idea that a lion was a gentle animal with the temperment of a cute little bunny rabbit, then our ancestors would have been dead a long time ago. Similarly if they could not form concrete true beliefs then they could not have made many of the value judgements necessary for the unique requirements of human survival in the wild. We are a terribly weak predator, physically. Even a few hyenas could kill a human easily.
I don't understand why people are so uncomfortable with the idea that most of the Bible was revealed as metaphor and not literalism. I don't waste my time arguing for a divine hand in the original creation act by insisting "it's in the Bible, thus it is so" because all I have to do is point out how improbable it is that the atomic weights of the basic atomic elements like Helium, Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen are just right to allow for nuclear fusion and atomic bonding. I am no fundamentalist as my return to Christianity was brought about by a reading of the Gospel of Thomas, but I have floored many an atheist with that. You want to show them up, stop wasting your time quoting a book they'll never even acknowledge as having even valid metaphor and tell them "if hydrogen was .00005 AU off on its atomic weight you wouldn't exist."
Or am I missing a detailed description of the mechanisms of creation, and why God bothered to make all life appear to be related when in fact it is not, etc.?