2 Reasons why naturalism is irrational / Psi

[Aeromaxis]

I'd like feedback on these two arguments, both of which attack a naturalistic world-view, most atheists being naturalists 'n all: The former is essentially the "Argument from Reason" and is probably familiar to some. I shall post it in the hope of receiving well informed criticisms (myself being a supporter of the argument):

P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention. (This is a belief inseperable from naturalism and fundamental to it, so you can't accuse it of being false(!) unless you want to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.... (In which case you wouldn't be a naturalist.))

P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.

P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.

Con: Therefore naturalism, in conjunction with the belief that a function of our minds is to produce true beliefs is to hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.


Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.


The latter is an argument from value:

P1) According to the naturalist, only that which is inside the universe actually exists. (There is noting outside; no God, no supernatural etc.)

P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)

To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.

P3) Everyone (and therefore naturalists), however, act as if things had value - preferring some things over others, by simply doing anything :) (!)

Con: Naturalism, therefore, in conjunction with a world view (or any belief) which expresses a preference for one thing over another, which makes value judgements, is to, again, hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.

Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition. And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.



In both cases naturalists operate in ways for which they can offer no ratiuonal justification. Since theism offers such justification, it is therefore irrational to prefer naturalism over and above such a world view.

[DaMan121]

Not an expert, but I believe premise 1 is a classic strawman. The only answer at the moment for how the universe came to be, or what 'caused' the big-bang is "I dont know". Theists love to use 'chance' and 'random' when attacking this subject, evolution etc.


P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.

Even if we conceed that pure chance or randomness played a part in our creation, I still dont understand how any belief we aquire about us or the universe is void if we werent created with a 'purpose'.


Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition. And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.

Well yeah, definitions are cool, great way to shift the goalposts, eg universe = god, i.e naturalism is perfectly rational.

[The AntiChris]

P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.
You're equivocating two meanings of 'purpose' in these two statements.

In the first you use 'purpose' as synonymous with function, in the second, you use 'purpose' as synonymous with intention.
P1) According to the naturalist, only that which is inside the universe actually exists. (There is noting outside; no God, no supernatural etc.)

P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)

To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.

P3) Everyone (and therefore naturalists), however, act as if things had value - preferring some things over others, by simply doing anything (!)

Con: Naturalism, therefore, in conjunction with a world view (or any belief) which expresses a preference for one thing over another, which makes value judgements, is to, again, hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.
The only way this would make sense is if you include the implied premise:

P) To act as though things have value is is unjustifiable if intrinsic value does not exist.

I doubt many around here would accept the implied premise.

Chris

[braces_for_impact]

P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.

Just as a quick note, our brains were shaped by natural selection. This is anything but random.

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.

We evolved through natural selection with a brain and sensory organs which gather and interpret our surroundings. We attempt to make true beliefs that reflect likely happenings in the world around us in order to survive and reproduce. So I fail to see how there is no justification.

To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.

I'm no philospher, so maybe I'm missing something here, but why can I not value myself? If anything it seems that the primary goal of any organism on this planet is to survive long enough to reproduce. Therefore offspring has value and you yourself have value.

I have genes, therefore I am?

[Bold]

P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)


I see an equation of value with intrinsic value going on here. You see I think I have value, but none of my components have value on their own. Value is not like mass, whereby you can add up the values of all the components.

Or we could say that the value of my components is extrinsic, and perhaps value is always or almost always extrinsic.

Anyway I have examined God, and found no intrinsic value there either.

[graymouser]

P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention. (This is a belief inseperable from naturalism and fundamental to it, so you can't accuse it of being false(!) unless you want to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.... (In which case you wouldn't be a naturalist.))
Actually, what we see inevitably is that the Ultimate Fact of Reality - whether we call that God or the universe or anything else - exists without purpose, end, or intention. This is not a situation that can be rectified in any way, shape, or form; you cannot object to this principle even if you aren't a naturalist. It is impossible that the Ultimate Fact of Reality has any explanation for its existence whatsoever, for if it did it wouldn't be the Ultimate Fact of Reality.

That said, I think you're wrong to use "chance" here. The Ultimate Fact of Reality just exists, and nothing more can be said about its existence. That is axiomatic; to deny it would be to contradict yourself. "Chance" refers pretty explicitly to random probabilities, which cannot be responsible for the Ultimate Fact of Reality. If they were, then those random probabilities themselves would be the Ultimate Fact of Reality.

P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.
This is a non sequitur; humans and human consciousness did not, in fact, arise by chance. They evolved, which is to say, they arose in response to environmental selective pressures. Nothing at all to do with chance.

P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)
Yes, and we assume that they yield true beliefs, even though we can't justify them (induction cannot be inductively justified). That's Humean skepticism, and I have no problem admitting it. However, I object to your equivocation of purpose (use) with purpose (reason that something was designed) as it is used in the next point.

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.
Yes, we are unjustified in asserting that our thinking processes yield true beliefs; yet we assume they do, while keeping in mind Humean skepticism (at least, that's my epistemological justification for it). However, as I said earlier, you're equivocating on the definition of "purpose."

Con: Therefore naturalism, in conjunction with the belief that a function of our minds is to produce true beliefs is to hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.
All viewpoints are unjustifiable, at least to skeptical empiricism. Some are more unjustifiable than others. It doesn't mean it isn't, most likely, true.

Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.
Incorrect. Theism does not escape this conclusion. Since God (in theism) is the Ultimate Fact of Reality, God's knowledge itself is equally subject to the arbitrariness criterion as man's knowledge. God must be an ultimate skeptic just as man is, and therefore God does not have rationally justifiable knowledge. Since man's knowledge in theism is subordinate to God's, it is likewise unjustifiable. Same problem, moved to a different place.

The latter is an argument from value:

P1) According to the naturalist, only that which is inside the universe actually exists. (There is noting outside; no God, no supernatural etc.)
Sufficiently accurate.

P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)

To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.
I would say that there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

P3) Everyone (and therefore naturalists), however, act as if things had value - preferring some things over others, by simply doing anything :) (!)
Correct. Value is not something that is intrinsic, but something that is ascribed to entities.

Con: Naturalism, therefore, in conjunction with a world view (or any belief) which expresses a preference for one thing over another, which makes value judgements, is to, again, hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.
Non sequitur. We ascribe values to entities, and as such they have value to us. Nothing has value absent a valuer.

Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition.
Special pleading. God does not have value absent a valuer any more than any other entity does; your request that it be granted in God's definition is a request that need not be granted in an argument.

And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.
Incorrect. You simply act as if you did.

In both cases naturalists operate in ways for which they can offer no ratiuonal justification. Since theism offers such justification, it is therefore irrational to prefer naturalism over and above such a world view.
Incorrect. We are without rational justification in preferring rationality to irrationality, but the very skepticism that allows us to hold rationality consistently (that is, recognition that it is without a rational justification) allows us to reject superstition and metaphysical speculation. This is why I hold that fideism is the only meaningful theistic position, while rejecting it ultimately as superstition that I cannot hold in the final analysis.

-Wayne

[post tenebras lux]

Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.
If theism ‘escapes’ your conclusion because it ‘rejects’ the first premise, I would like to know where your god came from? If you feel that your god ‘just is’ then why do you appear to have a problem with the fact that the universe ‘just is’ as well?

And where did your divine omnipotent being get his ‘intentions from’?

Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition. And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.
Why does your god have ‘intrinsic’ value? To claim that he has it just ‘by definition’ begs the following question: is your god real or is he just the creation of man?

Could you please be so kind as to give a slightly better reason for your god to have ‘intrinsic’ value other than ‘well, if god didn’t have intrinsic value then he wouldn’t be god, would he?’?

PS Re your 'questions of judgement': is your definition of ‘good’, etc. just a case of ‘good is whatever god decides is good’, etc? i.e. If your god said that wiping out the Philistines is good then, by definition, the genocide of the Philistines is good?

Luxie

[Alf]

As far as I can tell the reasoning is mostly bound in a misunderstanding of the atheist position concerning these matters. Let me go through it point by point.

I'd like feedback on these two arguments, both of which attack a naturalistic world-view, most atheists being naturalists 'n all: The former is essentially the "Argument from Reason" and is probably familiar to some. I shall post it in the hope of receiving well informed criticisms (myself being a supporter of the argument):


ok.


P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention. (This is a belief inseperable from naturalism and fundamental to it, so you can't accuse it of being false(!) unless you want to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.... (In which case you wouldn't be a naturalist.))


The universe itself may have begun as a result of pure chance but once started chance is NOT the only mechanism at work. Gravity for example works in a most non-random manner if gravity was the only force at work in the universe it would be completely deterministic. In the big universe of today - in the large scale - gravity _Is_ the only force of significance, therefore the universe to a large extent does display a deterministic behavior. We know exactly where the moon will be on january 11th, 12:15 GMT 6005. We know this precisely because the universe in the large scale is so deterministic. Of course, there is a chance that the moon will be hit by several asteroids before that and be disturbed so that the position will be slightly different but the probability is low enough that we can ignore it. Even if an asteroide hits it, it will most likely not change its course so dramatically. Yet, chaos theory does imply that small changes now can result in huge changes over time, so it cannot be completely ruled out. Yet, the reason why this is so is precisely of the unknown effect of various objects in space which we do not work into our model. Gravity itself is deterministic and far from random.

Similarly in the somewhat smaller scale of molecules that created life originally. We have randomness in the form of mutation etc but we also have non-randomness in the form of a struggle for survival where the best fit organism survives.

Thus, just because the universe was created by a random event, does not imply that our brain and our ability to reason is solely the result of random chance. The non-random features also have a role to play.

Compare this with rolling dices. If you have 10 dices and you roll them all, what is the chance that you get 7 dices all showing 6? It is rather unlikely I would guess. Even if you rolled them 20 times would you be likely to collect 7 dices all showing 6.

Now, introduce a non-random element. Instead of rolling all dices again each time, you keep those that show 6 and roll only those that didn't show 6 again. Roll up to 10 times. What is the chance that you will get 7 dices showing 6 this time?

I would say it is very likely, you might even get 8 or 9 or maybe even 10 dices all showing 6.

This is how life also works. Yes, you have mutations and other random features of the universe but you also have non-random features such as the struggle for survival which has essentially the same effect as keeping the good dices. The good genes survives and the bad geenes die out since the individuals with bad genes doesn't find enough food to survive long enough to breed and pass their genes on to the next generation.


P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.


As shown above that is blatantly wrong. Yes, chance had an important role to play but it wasn't the only actor and although it had a lead role there were also other actors with lead roles in the play. Natural laws, survival of the fittest, ability to adapt etc etc.


P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)

well, ok - in so far as the brain does that - determine that it will regard X as true, it is doing a non-random process known as "logical or rational thinking". Again, you may have some random creativity at the start of that process but once you get the idea of what X is, the process of determining that X is true or false is fairly non-random and rather strict - at least if you want to be rational.


P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.

Err..not so fast... where did we say that the brain developed without any purpose or function?

True enough, I don't believe some being decided "Let us make a brain, so this animal can think". However, I do believe that evolution did develop a brain and as the brain had the ability to think and thus provided an excellent function in doing so, that animal that had a brain had a distinct advantage over other animals around it that did not have a brain. Thus, the brain animal would pass on its genes while the brainless animals might have a comparable disadvantage and many of them would die out.

Also, it is obvious to see how the brain originally developed. It is closely connected with nerves and was most likely originally simply a big lump of nerve tissue. Nerves developed since they allowed the animal to sense things in one part of hte body and send signal about what it sensed to other parts of its body. Thus, it when it sensed food coming towards the mouth, it could open the mouth and let the food in. Thus, nerves in and of themselves would be useful in a primitive animal even if the animal had no brain.

The brain is then simply a lump of such nerve tissue that started to operate as a central command central that received all signals from nerves and combined them all together and formed a response signal to muscles and hormone producing organs.

At some point an animal developed with such an advanced brains that it could be said to "think" and posess cognitive functions. No great leap of faith is required for that conclusion.


Con: Therefore naturalism, in conjunction with the belief that a function of our minds is to produce true beliefs is to hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.


Flat out wrong. The brain developed a function as it evolved into a brain. The early brains probably simply received simple signals from various sensory input - most notably touch, smell and taste - eyes came a bit later, hearing likewise. Touch is perhaps the most primitive sensory mechanism that appeared in the earliest life forms.

Nerve to simple brain: Something coming near the mouth.
Nerve from smell sense to simple brain: Smells like food.
Simple brain to mouth muscle: Open mouth and get it.

Simple signal passing, the contents of the message is simply a question of which nerve path was taken, if the nerve path lead to a particular muscle, then it was a message for that muscle to contract and thus cause mouth to open, a leg to flee or whatever.

Since the purpose or function of the brain developed with the brain itself we can very well talk about a purpose or function even if that purpose was not imposed upon it from some designer.

Bottom line, the conclusion is wrong.


Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.


True. Theism however has other problems.


The latter is an argument from value:

P1) According to the naturalist, only that which is inside the universe actually exists. (There is noting outside; no God, no supernatural etc.)


Not sure if all naturalists agree with that, but I certainly do. The universe is all there is. X exist implies X exist in the universe.


P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)

Depends on what you mean by value. However, I will grant that you are right. I personally believe that value is - more or less by definition - a subjective thing. Someone places a value on an object and so the value that the object is given is subjective relative to the someone who does the value giving. Thus, I may think that pie is good while someone else may think that pie is something he wouldn't want to eat if you gave it to him and he had been starving for 10 days. Values are - inherently - subjective.


To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.

Well, I believe I have a value to me. I value myself pretty much - it is called "survival instinct" and evolution has developed it in us for a millions of years.

Since I therefore think I have value, I can arbitarily give value to other things I see around me. Those values may be similar to your values of the same things or they may be totally different. I would assume we place a different value on theism for example but we may put a similar value on the moral idea that you shouldn't arbitarily kill other people.


P3) Everyone (and therefore naturalists), however, act as if things had value - preferring some things over others, by simply doing anything :) (!)

Yes. I gave the rationale behind it above. Since I put a value on myself I can put value on other things. I might even value something else above myself. For example a mother may value her children above herself and gladly sacrifice herself so that they can survive. A bee will gladly sacrifice itself and sting an intruder and thus dying herself (a bee sting will utlimately lead to the death of the bee that did the stinging) when someone intrude upon the bee hive because it values the beehive and the colony above herself.

You may argue that the bee doesn't do that consciously, it is by instinct but the point is that evolution has provided such a mechanism in many places that some individual may value someone else or something else above itself. We may call it instinct or conscious thought but the distinction in this context that we are discussing here is arbitarily and ultimately uninteresting.


Con: Naturalism, therefore, in conjunction with a world view (or any belief) which expresses a preference for one thing over another, which makes value judgements, is to, again, hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.


Yes, we do but it isn't unjustifiable.


Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition. And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.


Not so fast. Since there is no evidence that this God actually exist his value is highly questionable. Further, what evidence we have for a God with value is rather slim and the evidence actually - in so far as it exist - point in the opposite direction. The latest tsunami for example indicate that if there is a God he obviously doesn't value human life very much, why should we then bother to worship or kneel before such a God? It is like we are the slave who work hard for massa in the daytime only to see him come in and rape our daughter in the evening and then go down on knees and thank him that he allowed us to live one more day so we can slave for him one more day.

Such a brutal and inhuman and unjust God isn't exactly something I would value very much.


In both cases naturalists operate in ways for which they can offer no ratiuonal justification. Since theism offers such justification, it is therefore irrational to prefer naturalism over and above such a world view.

Given the above discussion I don't think I have to point out the obvious: You are wrong.

Alf

[Prester John]

I am unsure of this part:

P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)

Better would be (one of the)the function(s) of the brain is to interpret information about our environment in order that we may interact advantageously with it. The concious mind is an emergent property of the brain.

There is no "true belief" to be had, the phrase has religious connotations. Absolute truth is not required for us to function.

The main problem is the change in meaning of the word purpose between P3 and P4 in the first argument. By changing the misued word from purpose to function and inserting my definition of the function of our brains we get:

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the functions of our cognitive equipement is the production of information about our environment in order that we may interact advantageously with it. is to make an assertion without any justification.
My alterations in bold

Which is obviously false.

[Aeromaxis]

Not an expert, but I believe premise 1 is a classic strawman. The only answer at the moment for how the universe came to be, or what 'caused' the big-bang is "I dont know". Theists love to use 'chance' and 'random' when attacking this subject, evolution etc.

They do indeed, and I, conscious of this, made it clear what I meant: when I say the universe was created by chance, I mean it wasn't created with any purpose or objective.

Even if we conceed that pure chance or randomness played a part in our creation, I still dont understand how any belief we aquire about us or the universe is void if we werent created with a 'purpose'.

Becasue you have no reason to suppose your cognitive equipment is functioning properly, or even what "proper functioning" is.
If you think you can give a reason, post it.

[JPD]

Becasue you have no reason to suppose your cognitive equipment is functioning properly, or even what "proper functioning" is.
If you think you can give a reason, post it.

This could apply to you aswell. If your cognitive equipment is not functioning properly how can you be sure that your religious beliefs are valid? It would imply a creator releasing imperfect machines and then just leaving them to try and find gold hidden inside a sealed wooden box whilst wearing inch thick spectacles.

[Vorkosigan]

Becasue you have no reason to suppose your cognitive equipment is functioning properly, or even what "proper functioning" is. If you think you can give a reason, post it.

This is Plantinga's old and highly stupid argument. It's been annihilated here a dozen times in a dozen different ways. As someone already pointed out, your brain does not produce True Beliefs (there's no Truth out there) but produces effective beliefs -- that is, the mind constructs the world in a way that enables the primate H. sapiens to go about its business in a complex physical and social world. The idea of "truth" never enters into it, as "True" is a value that requires definition. For example, whose view of a metal boat is the "true" one -- the human one that perceives the light waves bouncing off it? The shark who detects its electromagnetic vibrations? The physicist who sees it as a collection of atoms in flux? Words like "true" and "accurate" are always relative to some function or purpose.

Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.

I sure hope they weren't designed for true beliefs. I am quite glad my brain returns colors falsely, perceives moving and changing objects as permanent, and solves logical problems more rapidly if they are couched as social problems than as abstract formulations. Brains designed for true beliefs would turn me into a social pariah, and get me killed right away.

Con: Naturalism, therefore, in conjunction with a world view (or any belief) which expresses a preference for one thing over another, which makes value judgements, is to, again, hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.

Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition. And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.

Completely laughable. Tell me, what is the best way to site incinerators? Should Jones Act subsidies be allowed? Is proportional representation better than winner-takes-all? What level of individual risk is the correct level? What is the best way to manage river basins? Which species should qualify as endangered, and why, and how much land should be set aside for them? When eliminating questions on a survey after performing inter-item correlations, what level is the right level for when an item should be eliminated as redundant? .70? .80? All of these -- and millions more -- cannot be answered in any extant theist framework. There's no concrete out there, just vaccuum.

Vorkosigan

[Hiero5ant]

I'd like feedback on these two arguments, both of which attack a naturalistic world-view, most atheists being naturalists 'n all: The former is essentially the "Argument from Reason" and is probably familiar to some.

Yeah, it's basically a watered-down version of Plantinga's probability arguments from _Warrant and Proper Function_.



P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention. (This is a belief inseperable from naturalism and fundamental to it

Which belief? The belief that "the universe arose by chance" or the belief that the universe "was not formed with any purpose"? The too statements aren't equivalent, you know.

I'm very pessimistic about the chances of a proof's disproving a position when the first premise of the proof can't even state the position accurately.


P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.


You write "therefore" as if this is a conclusion rather than a new premise, but it doesn't follow from either P1(a) or P1(b).

Aside from the fact that it's a non sequitur, it also happens to be false.

It also happens to be not something that belief in naturalism requires. The pessimism increases...


P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)


True, but with the caveat that teleology talk in the context of evolution refers to prior selective pressures.


P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.


Good thing I put that caveat after P3, eh?

One of the neat things about evolution by natural selection -- in fact, the neatest thing of all -- is that you can get things that have "function"without needing "purposes" or "intentions". It would behoove you not to conflate the two.


Con: Therefore naturalism, in conjunction with the belief that a function of our minds is to produce true beliefs is to hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.


If I had invested $100 in Conflation at the start of this proof, I'd be a millionaire by now...

Seriously, here you just leap from "the mind was not the product of intentional processes" to "the mind has no function". Again, the two concepts are not at all equivalent.


Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.


It's hard for me to say how theism would "escape" from the above argument, because it contains so many conflations and unjustified conclusions that even a Theist would have to comb through it just to be able to read it straight enough to reject.


The latter is an argument from value:

P1) According to the naturalist, only that which is inside the universe actually exists. (There is noting outside; no God, no supernatural etc.)

P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)

To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.

P3) Everyone (and therefore naturalists), however, act as if things had value - preferring some things over others, by simply doing anything :) (!)



By this point, I'd be a conflation trillionaire...

Here, you at least acknowledged earlier that there's a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value. But by the time you wrote P3, you's apparently forgotten all about it.

Ask yourself this about p3: First, does everyone act as if things had intrinsic value, or the other kind? Second, which of these two senses of value has to be the case for your argument to work?

[Dark Knight Bob]

They do indeed, and I, conscious of this, made it clear what I meant: when I say the universe was created by chance, I mean it wasn't created with any purpose or objective.

What makes you think the objective has anything to do with human existance. For all we know we're a mere bi-product of something entirely different.

[Prof]

Aeromaxis,

It appears your argument has been shredded here.

Will you still hold to the argument nonetheless?

(That's one problem I so often we with theists...that they come here with an argument, it's torn apart, but it makes no difference because they just go ahead and use the argument elsewhere anyway).

Prof.

[mirage]

This could apply to you aswell. If your cognitive equipment is not functioning properly how can you be sure that your religious beliefs are valid? It would imply a creator releasing imperfect machines and then just leaving them to try and find gold hidden inside a sealed wooden box whilst wearing inch thick spectacles.
And how can you trust your supposed creator to give you any reliable basis for knowledge? What about Descartes deceiving demon? No belief system has a "rational foundation", they can only be internally consistent. And religious ones aren't in general.

All your points have been sufficiently mauled but I would like to draw attention back to graymouser's Ultimate Fact of Reality point which is very important and often overlooked.

[camp freddie]

Because you have no reason to suppose your cognitive equipment is functioning properly, or even what "proper functioning" is.
If you think you can give a reason, post it.

Isn't that a non-sequiteur? Even if we were created with a purpose, we wouldn't know that we were 'properly functioning', since we wouldn't know what the purpose was.

A god could create all sorts of things for one purpose or another, but those things might not know the purpose. Even if god informed his creations of their purposes, he could be lying.

Besides, the reason we trust our senses is twofold.

1) The theory of evolution. If our senses were lying to us, then we wouldn't survive. True (or approximately true) senses are a survival requirement.

2) What else do we have? We have no possible way to guide our lives other than by what we sense. If our senses were false, what else would we do?

In order for the theist to know he is correct, he must be able to prove that god gave him senses that are true. This is circular, since the theist can only use his senses to work out if his senses were given to him by god.

A similar argument can be made that (1) is circular, since we can only show that evolution gave us our senses by using our senses.

So essentially, everyone falls back on (2). No one can prove that their senses are true. We could be a brain in a lab or in the matrix or whatever. We have to assume that our sense give an approximately true idea of what the universe is like, and take it from there.

The theist then makes the further assumption that not only are his senses reliable, but that they come from god, who purposely gave us reliable senses. There is no reproducable evidence, visible to our senses, that can back this up.

The atheist makes no further assumptions. Our senses can repeatedly show us evidence for evolution, which explains why our senses would be reliable.

[Arkanin]

P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention. (This is a belief inseperable from naturalism and fundamental to it, so you can't accuse it of being false(!) unless you want to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.... (In which case you wouldn't be a naturalist.))

Unfortunately, your first premise is critically flawed, so I haven't read the rest. First, the universe may not have been caused. Second, the universe may have always existed. Third, to say that the universe did not probably arise from an anthropomorphic intelligent entity is most certainly not the same as saying it was "by chance". It might have been deterministic, or a result of some laws, or the child of a meta-universe. Who knows?

[Hiero5ant]

They do indeed, and I, conscious of this, made it clear what I meant: when I say the universe was created by chance, I mean it wasn't created with any purpose or objective.


...and many people have been endeavoring to explain to you that the concepts are not interchangeable.

[RGD]

Aeromaxis,

It appears your argument has been shredded here.

Will you still hold to the argument nonetheless?

(That's one problem I so often we with theists...that they come here with an argument, it's torn apart, but it makes no difference because they just go ahead and use the argument elsewhere anyway).

Prof.

True. I am much more interested in Aeromaxis' response to the dissection of his argument, than I am in the argument itself (which is, as somebody already pointed out, a cheap version of Plantinga's already outdated nonsense).

But I doubt my curiosity will be satisfied; few theists that I know of actually have the courage of their convictions (except, of course, the ones who haven't any clue about what they're saying anyway....).

[Alf]

True. I am much more interested in Aeromaxis' response to the dissection of his argument, than I am in the argument itself (which is, as somebody already pointed out, a cheap version of Plantinga's already outdated nonsense).

But I doubt my curiosity will be satisfied; few theists that I know of actually have the courage of their convictions (except, of course, the ones who haven't any clue about what they're saying anyway....).

I find it quite telling that he only responded to the one post which did not shred his arguments.

Alf

[Naked Ape]

I have a couple quick questions:
Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.
What did this "divine, omnipotent being" that you posit arise as a result of?
Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition. And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.
What is the value of god, and how can you prove it?

If you can clear these questions up, we may be able to make some progress here.

Cheers,

Naked Ape

[Draygomb]

I'm just going to knock out a quick response to the first line of thinking.

The conclusion is that god must exist because random events couldn't have produced a mind that produces truths.

But if god exists then our minds are designed to produce truth.
And since our minds tell us that God couldn't have decided to create time before time existed and therefore God doesn't exist. Then it must be true.
Therefore god can't exist because if he did it would necessarily be true that he didn't exist.

Therefore random events can produce minds that can discover truth.

[Bill Snedden]

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.
This premise appears to rest on an assumption that reason cannot arise from "unreason" and thus essentially assumes what the argument sets out to prove. The Naturalist is therefore justified in rejecting it.
P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)

To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.
The rebuttal to the objection fails as it rests on an assumption that in order for something to have value, it must be valued by something that has value. In other words, the rebuttal is an attempt to vitiate the concept of extrinsic value by assuming that intrinsic value must exist. It is thus self-referentially circular and therefore fails. The naturalist is therefore justified in objecting to and rejecting the second premise.

[Draygomb]

What better example of the effects of random creation then the totally random assignment of value which we observe and possess.

If individual objects had an assigned value then wouldn't we all value them the same? Wouldn't everyones values be the same?

[Hiero5ant]

Another related point for the OP:

You do know that naturalism != atheism, right?

You can be a supernaturalist atheist. You can be a naturalist theist.

You can be an atheist and believe in objective morality. You can be a theist and believe in subjectivist morality.

You can be a naturalist (ignorant of the evidence) and disbelieve in evolution. You can be a supernaturalist and believe that naturalistic evolution is true.

Of course, this all assumes that "supernaturalism" is even a coherent concept, and I have some serious doubts about that.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

Man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.

This is, of course, the other side of the fallacy. An omnipotent being could have arranged our minds any way it chose; even granted an omnipotent being, there is no a priori reason to believe our minds were designed for the production of true and reliable beliefs. Even under theism, such a premise must be assumed without justification. Even the premise of an omnibenevolent god does not help us, because we must assume without justification that it is good to have reliable beliefs.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

I've got to start getting up earlier. You bastards sucked all the juice out of this guy before I even turned my computer on; it's very unsatisfying chewing on the bones.

[Hiero5ant]

This is, of course, the other side of the fallacy. An omnipotent being could have arranged our minds any way it chose; even granted an omnipotent being, there is no a priori reason to believe our minds were designed for the production of true and reliable beliefs. Even under theism, such a premise must be assumed without justification. Even the premise of an omnibenevolent god does not help us, because we must assume without justification that it is good to have reliable beliefs.

I'll see your point and raise you one more:

If ontological naturalism is false then there can be no such thing as reliable knowledge, period.

If objects can arbitrarily pop in and out of existence, if the laws of reality can arbitrarily be suspended on alternate thursdays, if an omnipotent and infinitely inscrutible God-Sprite can arbitrarily intervene in the universe on a lark, then there can be no such thing as justified true belief. Knowledge is premised on the reliability of our inferences, and if naturalism is false then by definition our senses are unreliable.

Of course, things get even worse for the Judeo-Christian theist, because according to the Bible, Yahweh explicitly and deliberately intervenes in the universe for the stated purpose of creating erroneous beliefs. How one is supposed to reason from the Biblical depiction of God to the idea that his existence is the only way our sense-data can be reliable is, I confess, a mystery to me.

[Draygomb]

If ontological naturalism is false then there can be no such thing as reliable knowledge, period.Well I'll be... You're absolutely correct.

[Angrillori]

I'd like feedback on these two arguments, both of which attack a naturalistic world-view, most atheists being naturalists 'n all: The former is essentially the "Argument from Reason" and is probably familiar to some. I shall post it in the hope of receiving well informed criticisms (myself being a supporter of the argument):

P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention. (This is a belief inseperable from naturalism and fundamental to it, so you can't accuse it of being false(!) unless you want to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.... (In which case you wouldn't be a naturalist.))


What the heck are you talking about!

Stop saying we believe everything is by chance! We don't!

We have every reason to believe that the universe arose by the specific results of specific tendencies which are anything but random.

If you place a bunch of hydrogen molecules in a balloon with a bunch of oxygen molecules, they will naturalistically, BUT NOT BY CHANCE, form some water when heat is applied. To the best of our knowledge, and growing more clear every year, the formation of the universe as we know it is a very analguous event. Not a product of "chance" at all.

So STOP IT WITH THE FALSE APPEALS TO CHANCE ALREADY!


P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.


Or, they arose very specifically through the workings of nature. Evolution, chemistry, and physics, none of which could be labeled as "chance" by anyone who knew a dime about them!


P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)


Uhm, no. We like to say that our mind is useful for separating true beliefs from untrue ones by comparing our beliefs to reality and applying tools like formal logic and deductive and inductive reasoning.

(For those keeping record, Aeromaxis strawmen are 0-for-3 so far.)


P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.


0-for-4. Not being created for a purpose does not imply a thing cannot be used for a purpose.

A large flat rock in my garden was not created for the purpose of being used for a hammer. Yet, every winter, when I'm driving in the stakes that I use to hold the light-up reindeer in the ground, that rock finds itself being used for that purpose anyways.

Our mind might not have been designed with the purpose of separating true beliefs from untrue ones. Like the rock though, that does not mean it is not useful for that purpose anyways.


Con: Therefore naturalism, in conjunction with the belief that a function of our minds is to produce true beliefs is to hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.


Of course, if ANY of your premises were at all anything more than falsehoods and strawmen, your conclusion might be justified.

Sadly, all your premises were falsehoods and strawmen. So, sorry.



Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.


Except that it uses the mind to determine that a god made the mind with a purpose. That's circularity. It's a bit hidden, admittedly, but it's circular nonetheless.

Take this case, to destroy the theistic stance:
Suppose the mind was created naturalistically with the tendency to believe it was created with a purpose by a god. Like asking a liar: "Do you tell the truth?" you could not trust any answer you received, INCLUDING the answer that led to belief that it was created by a god with a purpose.

That's why this circular argument will never hold water. If the mind is flawed, you would have no way to use the mind to determine it flawed--it would always tell you it was NOT flawed, just as the consummate liar will always tell you that he's telling the truth.


The latter is an argument from value:

P1) According to the naturalist, only that which is inside the universe actually exists. (There is noting outside; no God, no supernatural etc.)


That's a strange thing to say. Doesn't really make sense. The universe is everything. Is it inside itself?

Is a box inside itself? A bag? A balloon?

No. It is 100% wrong to say the universe is "inside" itself, since the universe simply IS all there is. It is equally inside itself as it is outside itself. Think about a box again. Is a box inside itself, or outside itself? Neither. It IS itself.

Starting off 0-for-1. Things don't look good for the Aero-boy.


P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. (If you think you can, post it.)

To anticipate a possible objection here; it may be held by some that you, by yourself, can give something value by willing it. If, say, you like chess, then an ideal expression, for you, would be: "chess has value." Yet this response presumes that you have value, sufficiently so that, through your actions, you can give things value. Yet how do you justify the proposition that you, yourself, have value? To refer once more to yourself - to say "I have value because I say I have value" - is to presume what you are trying to prove, namely, that you have value.


What are you talking about?

I don't have to have value for things to have value to me.

Money has value to me and to all the other people who want (value) it. If a person values a thing, it is by definition "valued." This is pretty simple Aero. This is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether that person has value.

This is just like your "purpose" premise above. A thing needent be designed with a purpose, to be used for a purpose. A thing need not have any value itself in order to value other things itself.

More importantly, I value my existence. Why? Probably because evolution weeded out those species with a tendency to not value their survival. Nevertheless, I value my survival. By extension anything leading to my continued survival is also valued by me, REGARDLESS of whether I have any value to anyone or anything else.

I value my happiness, and things leading to it. I value my comfort, and things leading to it. As long as I value a thing, it is valued.

0-for-2.


P3) Everyone (and therefore naturalists), however, act as if things had value - preferring some things over others, by simply doing anything :) (!)



Because they do have value for us. Which needent mean they have value to anyone else, or that we have value to anyone else. In fact, I quite suspect there are few who value my existence (beyone my wife, friends, and bosses, of course). nevertheless that in no way diminshes the value I place on things which continue my survival, happiness, and comfort.

So, I gues this premise itself is true.

1-for-3. Not bad, BUT, 1-for-3 does NOT lead to a true conclusion, so...


Con: Naturalism, therefore, in conjunction with a world view (or any belief) which expresses a preference for one thing over another, which makes value judgements, is to, again, hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.


Sorry. This would require all your premises to be true, not merely the one.


Theism, again, escapes such morbid conclusions since God is a being which does have value intrinsically, it being part of his definition. And, in this way, theists work with a sure, concrete foundation for all questions of judgement.


You're not really making sense again. "Part of it's defintion?" Huh?

So anything we define as "having intrinsic value" MUST exist?

Sorry, fellow, but you'll want to check out the philosophy forum, and see where efforts to define god into existence get you.

P.S. I just defined gibblypomps as things with "intrinsic value." So, since they have intrinsic value, by definition, they must exist?


In both cases naturalists operate in ways for which they can offer no ratiuonal justification. Since theism offers such justification, it is therefore irrational to prefer naturalism over and above such a world view.

Is it okay for me to ROFL now?

ok.

ROFL.

[Bobinius]

P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention. (This is a belief inseperable from naturalism and fundamental to it, so you can't accuse it of being false(!) unless you want to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural.... (In which case you wouldn't be a naturalist.))

1. Naturalism is a metaphysical doctrine saying that the Universe is all there is and it functions according to natural laws.

2. False dichotomy: things appear by chance or with a purpose. Randomness and teleology. How about causality? Water vapors appear at 100 degrees Celsius without any purpose. They do not appear by chance either: it is necessity, natural causality.

P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.

Therefore ? My friend, is the Universe chaotic in your opinion or is regular and governed by natural laws?

That's the problem with theists: they imagine the human being as suspended and having an eternal essence independent of the environment.

Try to breathe under water. That's how you will find out why we live on dry land. And it is not by chance. It is called natural selection. You are dependent and determined by your environment.


P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. (We like to say, in other words, that it is the purpose (or, at least, one of the purposes) of the mind.)

Strawman.

The function of our thinking processes is to think. to make judgements. We can very easy make false judgements and hold erroneous beliefs. When your brain produces a false belief is it malfunctional? The brain is not a truth factory.

But, to live in your environment you need beliefs that describe that environment in an adequate way. The false beliefs are not useful at all. Because you act according to your beliefs you are more likely to survive if you are basing your actions on true beliefs than on false ones. If you think that that fire is cold, you will get burned. you will learn and remember that fire is hot. This is a true and useful belief you are using in order to survive.

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.

This translates into: Since our thinking processes were not consciously designed to act for a purpose=goal, to say that they are having a purpose=function is to make an assertion without justification.

Equivocation. Non sequitur.



Con: Therefore naturalism, in conjunction with the belief that a function of our minds is to produce true beliefs is to hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.

Have you ever heard of the Skeptic Infinite Regress Argument? If every proposition is jusitfied by another and your justification is not circular you will have an infinite regress of epistemic justification.

So all wordlviews have foundamental beliefs that are not justifiable, because they wouldn't be foundamental anymore. No tragedy here. There is an external world that produces the same effects in the same circumstances is a foundamental belief used by theists and atheists alike. The trouble is you add God to this belief. And that is unjustified and redundant.

Obviously, theism escepes this conclusion since it rejects the first premise; and man's cognitive functions arose as the result and the intentions of a divine, omnipotent being who would have ensured that minds were designed for the production of true or reliable beliefs.


Theism does not escape anything. Theism moves the justification one step back by adding the justification 'God' which is itself unjustified.

Did God arose by chance or was he designed to create humans with the purpose of them producing true beliefs?

Bobinius

[Angrillori]

Nuh uh!

God is defined as being justified. Therefore he exists. And is justified!

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

[breezanne]

Only the natural world is governed by natural laws. Naturalism as a metaphysical philosophy is irrational primarily because it represents an immaterial mind claiming that "all is matter."

[RGD]

Only the natural world is governed by natural laws. Naturalism as a metaphysical philosophy is irrational primarily because it represents an immaterial mind claiming that "all is matter."

Well, parts of that are correct....

The natural world is, in fact, governed by natural laws. And I agree that Naturalism - by which I believe that you mean, Philosophical Naturalism is inherently irrational. But your statement that mind is immaterial is NOT born out by the data. Sorry.

[Bobinius]

In their everyday life all theists and non-theists are naturalists. At least methodologically naturalists. They all rely on the fact that similar circumstances will produce similar effects. When you throw a rock in the air you always expect it to fall down. When you learn anything new about the world you are considering the world to function on its own and not to change the next day you wake up.

But the progress of knowledge is blocked by Theism and Supernaturalism. When you encounter something new or extraordinary, like witnessing an epileptic crisis if you offer the explanation 'He is possesed' you are offering no explanation. You are totally irational in doing so. By relying on Naturalism and thinking 'This has a Natural cause' you can start the investigation and find the natural explanation.

The irational step is saying 'There is no Natural explanation'. This requires omniscience and is totally irational. If we would have sticked to this religious attitude from the begining, we would still believe in Thunder Gods.

Not knowing the Natural explanation does not equal knowing that there is no Natural explanation.

So by postulating God as an explanation in an ad-hoc after the fact fashion you are offering a rational perspective on things? Give me a breake. You don't know how he exists, you don't know how he interacts with the world, you don't know if there is a natural explanation, but you know God did it. :banghead:

[Bobinius]

Nuh uh!

God is defined as being justified. Therefore he exists. And is justified!

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

He is defined as being justified, existing, having intrinsic value. Let's believe in a definition
:wave:

[HRG]

I've got to start getting up earlier. You bastards sucked all the juice out of this guy before I even turned my computer on; it's very unsatisfying chewing on the bones.

What shall I say ? All that remains when I join the hunt is a fossilized tibia :banghead:

Regards, HRG.

[Hiero5ant]

Only the natural world is governed by natural laws. Naturalism as a metaphysical philosophy is irrational primarily because it represents an immaterial mind claiming that "all is matter."

Ho hum. You do know that materialism != naturalism, right?

Immaterial things may or may not exist. What the naturalist asserts is that, if they do, they behave according to lawlike, in principle knowable rules.

[graymouser]

Only the natural world is governed by natural laws. Naturalism as a metaphysical philosophy is irrational primarily because it represents an immaterial mind claiming that "all is matter."
Ipse dixit. In point of fact, modern science is proving more and more thoroughly that the mind itself is in fact completely matter. Try Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett for a good look into the issue.

-Wayne

[Aeromaxis]

Just as a quick note, our brains were shaped by natural selection. This is anything but random.
We evolved through natural selection with a brain and sensory organs which gather and interpret our surroundings. We attempt to make true beliefs that reflect likely happenings in the world around us in order to survive and reproduce. So I fail to see how there is no justification.

A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.

Have an example (derived from what I can remember of one of Plantinga's papers): Bill, your average caveman, in order to survive

[JPD]

Originally Posted by braces_for_impact
Just as a quick note, our brains were shaped by natural selection. This is anything but random.
We evolved through natural selection with a brain and sensory organs which gather and interpret our surroundings. We attempt to make true beliefs that reflect likely happenings in the world around us in order to survive and reproduce. So I fail to see how there is no justification.



A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.


Your refusal to "endorse" evolution has come as a shock and all the textbooks which deal with evolution will now need to include a disclaimer. Braces-for-impact has already stated (in the text that you have just quoted by the way) that we attempt to make true beliefs that reflect likely happenings in the world around us in order to survive and reproduce.


Have an example (derived from what I can remember of one of Plantinga's papers): Bill, your average caveman, in order to survive

Well you're here aren't you?

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.

Actually, many beliefs are manifestly false, especially when the impact on survival is small, as we should expect if evolution is true.

[mirage]

A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.
Firstly, regarding evolution, it tends towards true beliefs as they are very useful for survival, but certainly doesn't rule out false ones as has been pointed out. It particularly has no reason to weed out unfalsifiable beliefs (religions) the actual truth of which has nothing to do with the harm or benefits that result.

Secondly, you have not addressed the important point that your alternative view does not in fact guarantee anything about truth finding as it is a hopelessly circular argument.

[breezanne]

Mind is immaterial. It exists. Only a materialist (who has faith that all is matter) is forced to consider the immaterial to somehow be material. This endeavor is irrational and unnecessary, whether they realize it or not.

[breezanne]

By the way, there is no "data" that the mind is matter ... look up the meaning of mind.

[Prester John]

This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.

Perhaps Aeromaxis could enlighten us with his definition of true belief and then state his evidence for the mind seeking true belief as opposed to information neccessary for survival.

Smells like circular arguing approaching....

[mirage]

Mind is immaterial. It exists. Only a materialist (who has faith that all is matter) is forced to consider the immaterial to somehow be material. This endeavor is irrational and unnecessary, whether they realize it or not.
This is just a category error (seems to be error of the week). Linearity isn't matter either but it's well accommodated in any materialist philosophy. Movement isn't matter. Etc. etc.

Matter is a third person account of reality. Please identify this immaterial mind in the third person account. Switching perspective to first person and then crying foul is invalid. We can't have a first person account of matter either. So what?

[graymouser]

Mind is immaterial. It exists. Only a materialist (who has faith that all is matter) is forced to consider the immaterial to somehow be material. This endeavor is irrational and unnecessary, whether they realize it or not.
It's terribly complex in the details, but seriously: nothing about the mind's functioning is immaterial. It seems as if it is to the conscious entity, but in fact, every single function of the "mind" is indistinguishable from the corresponding functions of the brain. Mind-brain dualism is a false assumption based on the way things seem to be from an internal perspective, not unlike the rising and setting of the sun. In reality, everything you know about "mind" is in fact about the brain. This is not arriving from materialism (and I'm not going to dignify your line about "faith" with a response), but rather from modern neurological science.

-Wayne

[Tuvar Ane Ingolenen]

By the way, there is no "data" that the mind is matter ... look up the meaning of mind.However, minds are never observed to be independent of matter.

[RGD]

A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.

Have an example (derived from what I can remember of one of Plantinga's papers): Bill, your average caveman, in order to survive

Quite frankly, this is incorrect. Most of the responses to your two arguments have been to point out that your premises are invalid and your conclusions erroneous - not that evolution allows us to 'escape' those conclusions.

It would be nice if Aeromaxis would demonstrate some degree of integrity and actually respond to what was said, rather than to some fantasy of his/her own mind.

But I suppose that's asking too much... :o

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

Have an example (derived from what I can remember of one of Plantinga's papers): Bill, your average caveman, in order to survive

I discuss this very argument in The iganoramus [sic] at TalkOrigins (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=111687). I'll C&P my understanding of Plantinga's argument here:

A belief has the physical (neurophysiological) nature, the manner in which the belief is physically instantiated in our brain and, separately, a semantic meaning of its propositional content. It is, of course, the neurophysiological nature of the belief that causes any physical action, and thus determines whether or not the holder survives to reproduce. The semantic meaning of the propositional content is what we're talking about when we say whether or not a belief is true. He says then that the semantic content is epiphenomenal (or, at least, that we have no good reason to believe it is not), and thus might have no correlation whatsoever with the physical nature.

As I recall, Plantinga offers the metaphor of the primitive person who runs from the tiger. All that determines whether the person will survive is whether the physical nature of the belief causes the legs to move; the semantical meaning of the propositional content might be anything at all; the person might believe that he is in a friendly foot-race with the tiger, or is ineffectively attempting to approach the nice tiger, or a few other possibilities. All of which are putatively false beliefs (compared to the true belief that the tiger is dangerous) but all have the effect of physically causing the legs to move the person away from the tiger. Since any of a wide range of beliefs will confer a survival advantage, and since only one belief can be true, the probability of our beliefs being true is thus vanishingly small.

The first issue is why restrict the semantic content of the belief to something that itself names tigers and running away? If the semantic content is truly epiphenomenal, why believe even an effective belief must even be close to the true state of affairs? The semantic content of a belief that physically causes me to run away from a tiger might be enjoying the witty banter of a light opera at the Vienna Staatsoper. What reason is there to believe that our the semantic content of our beliefs have any relationship whatsoever to the physical actions the organism is performing?

When taken to this extreme, of course, the question is obvious: If it can be absolutely divorced from reality, by what means are we discovering the semantic content at all? It's not like we can just look into someone's mind and see that, when he is running from a tiger, he thinks, semantically, that he's enjoying Rigoletto, or even that he thinks he's having a friendly foot-race. We can't say the physical instatiation and semantic content are different unless we can identify and discuss them independently. And we cannot. We can infer the semantic meaning only by correlating the signal with what we perceive of reality. If we see some physical brain state that's correlated with physically running from the tiger, we can assign only the semantic meaning "run from the tiger"; we have no justification to assign any other meaning.

This is what I mean by Plantinga establishing a mystical notion of truth, indeed a mystical notion of semantic meaning itself. Plantinga asserts that we can discuss the meaning of a belief independently of its physical instantiation. But the only way to do so is to acquire our knowledge of that belief in some other way than to correlate the brain state with the behavior; in short, in some magical, mystical way. And once we're committed to a mystical interpretation of semantic meaning, we're already knocking on God's door.

[Alf]

A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.

Have an example (derived from what I can remember of one of Plantinga's papers): Bill, your average caveman, in order to survive

What RGD says is very true.

Will just add this.

1. we don't need to escape your conclusions. Since your conclusions was based on faulty premises and faulty logic there is nothing to escape.

2. Second, even if it were true it would be sufficient. As people have noted, the brain isn't overly concerned with what is true or not - it cannot be, it is impossible for it to be. It is mostly concerned with what works, i.e. what allows me to survive best?

For things where we can discern the truth, this is of course identical with truth since believing or knowing that X is true when it is in fact true is normally better than believing it is false and if X is false it is normally better to believe it is false rather than believing it is true.

However, for statements where no proof or evidence is available, the brain has no way. You might say the better brain would then be one that threw away such questions and thoughts and rather devoted time and effort on things we can figure out - scientists does that to some extent and the success of science has been largely because of this. Our civilization has basically been standing still while religion reigned and even went backwards, the ancient greek knew very well that the earth was round and even correctly estimated its size. However, all that was forgotten when christianity took over and so the common opinion at Columbus' time was that the earth was flat.

It is with the advance of science that we have progressed as a civilization.

However, it is quite possible to work fairly well even if your brain waste time on speculation and imagining big daddies in the sky - your brain is quite good and resourceful so even if you waste time on such things it can still function fairly decent and in some areas it is actually benificial.

The church is the main reason why those in power could stay in power during the feudal period and the aristocracy. Using religion as a means of controlling the masses and keeping them quiet was benificial to keep status quo. It didn't make much progress but those in power those days didn't want progress, they wanted things to stay as they were and religion is exceptional at ensuring just that. Provided the church support the current ruling system of course.

Also on the individual level, religion can in some situations be benificial for a person. If a person is alcoholic but then "finds Jesus" and stop drinking, he can focus on praying and reading the bible and that will help him stop drinking. It is possible to stop drinking by other means also but the easiest way to stop an addiciton is to replace it with another addiction. Many who smoke start to eat candy for example and many who drink start to read the bible. Replacing one addiction with a new addiction is an easy way to get rid of the first addiction - in so far as the new addiction is not as bad as the first, this is generally seen as an improvement.

Similarly, people with other personal problems such as depression etc might find devoting their life to Jesus or whatever will help them with their problems. It will change their focus away from the problems and over to some other area.

It is worth noting that the people could just as well have refocused to something else. For example if you are interested in soccer you might become an avid soccer fan, that too will help you stop drinking (assuming your soccer fan buddies doesn't go out for a beer) or help you forget your depression just as well as religion does.

God has absolutely nothing to do with it, neither is Jesus. It is the devotion and the focusing in itself that is the clue.

So, as you can see, there are actually situations where a belief may be benificial. However, any form of devotion can also work just as well. In practice you might want to focus on something that not only takes your attention away from drinking or depression but also something positive such as helping others etc. Thus, joining a group that helps other people would work just as well as joining a church. However, the church is typically just around the corner while any such organization is further away or non-existent and so most people in that situation tend to become religious. In no way are they proof that the religion is true though. A person becoming obsessed with playing chess can cope with a drinking problem just as well as a person becoming obsessed with religion. In both cases will their new obsession help them to take their focus away from alcohol and focus on something other than taking a glass of some alcoholic beverage. So, when an alcoholic becomes religious and claim that Jesus helped him to sober up, he is plainly wrong. It wasn't Jesus, it was the fact that he became religious in and of itself that did the trick, Jesus had actually nothing to do with it. I.e. He only needs to believe that Jesus helped him in order to get helped, it doesn't have to be true - this is clear evidence that what I said above is true. As such religion works as a placebo effect.

So, yes, evolution might very well evolve a brain into what it is today - and that is exactly what we believe. This is no escape, it is simply a description of how I perceive the world.

Alf

[Angrillori]

A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.


WTF is with this "production of true beliefs" hooey?

Sheesh.

Our mind is great at producing untrue beliefs. Ever see an optical illusion? One of those "which line is longer" doodads? There's a book out there called "Cognitive Illusions" (I think) all about how our mind produces all kinds of untrue beliefs.

HOWEVER,

Our mind is also good at comparing beliefs to reality and weeding out beliefs that are untrue. Being able to compare perception to reality and evaluate for synergy is an incredibly survival-aiding trait. If your brain tells you you see a sabre-toothed tiger on the horizon, it's quite helpful to be able to evaluate the likelihood that that belief is true, doncha think? Being able to evaluate friend/foe, helper/parasite, etc. are all 100% useful to survival.

Heck, even being able to figure out that two lines are actually the same length, even if one looks longer could be a survival benefit if you were choosing which stick to use to dig termites out of a termite mound for dinner.

Because this ability to "compare belief to reality" is a survival advantage in MANY situations, as you can see, not just one, (as believing that you're in a footrace with a tiger any time you see one) it is evolutionarily "preferred". All things being equal, evolution will "prefer" a solution to the "tiger problem" that has added benefits. Being able to compare beliefs to reality definitely has added benefits. Believing you are in a footrace every time you see a tiger, does not.

Fortunately for us, what evolved as a survival mechanism had the added benefit of being able to be used to create literature, science, computers, and creme brulee.

But again, let's go back to the rock analogy, since I don't think you read it.

There's a rock in my garden.
It is round on one side, flat on another.
It has been in my garden for years.
It has existed, probably for thousands of years.
It was not designed to be used as a hammer.
When it was created, the hammer hadn't even been invented yet.
Nevertheless, each winter when I forget to bring an actual hammer outside to pound stakes into the ground, that rock works great.
It wasn't designed as a hammer.
But it can work as one.


Have an example (derived from what I can remember of one of Plantinga's papers): Bill, your average caveman, in order to survive

Edited to add:

Plus, as said before (it's important enough to repeat) we did not need to escape your conclusions. Your premises were faulty, and your reasoning full of fallacies. Even with no other system at all, we would have no reason to agree with your conclusions.

[Hiero5ant]

A lot of you have cited evolution as a means of escaping my conclusions, yet I do not think this will suffice. This is, essentially, because evolution (assuming it is true, which I, in no way, endorse) produces organisms geared toward survival (which is a matter of behaviour), NOT toward the production of true beliefs.




Wait, wait, hold the phone here.

You're at a tipping point in this thread. Your next few responses will determine whether the atheists, agnostics, and thoughtful theists who have been reading your posts will continue to regard you as someone with whom honest dialogue can be had.

It's good that you want to talk a bit more about evolution and the cognitive structures that it gives rise to, but this is very important: Do you acknowledge that, at least as you originally formulated them, your arguments are riddled with false assumptions, mischaracterizations, equivocations, and non sequiturs?

Now, you may be right that ontological naturalism is conceptually incoherent. Heck, you may even be right that it's incoherent specifically because of issues pertaining to evolutionary epistemology and metaethical theory. These are the kind of fascinating discussions that I just love having.

But now comes the real test of your character. Are you going to admit that you were wrong on several matters of fact, logic, and definition in your original post before you move on to a new area of argument, or, failing that, enumerate the criticisms posted so far and address them to show they do not point out errors? Or will you keep throwing out assertion after assertion, never pausing to support one of them when it's being demolished, and just hope that one of them sticks?

Remember Colossians 4:6.

[Hiero5ant]

WTF is with this "production of true beliefs" hooey?

Sheesh.

Our mind is great at producing untrue beliefs. Ever see an optical illusion? One of those "which line is longer" doodads? There's a book out there called "Cognitive Illusions" (I think) all about how our mind produces all kinds of untrue beliefs.


To continue in this vein, our mind is hard-wired to create all kinds of false beliefs, and these are not limited to the examples cited above realted to sense-data (bent sticks in water, "which line is longer", forced perspective rooms, stereo audio illusions, etc.)

Even on the level of the higher semantic inferences -- issues like "does medicine X cure disease Y?"; "is candidate A preferable to candidate B?"; "is this person really channelling extraterrestrials/Xenu/ the Angel Gabriel?" -- our brains are hard wired to fall victim to confirmation bias, communal reinforcement, the Gambler's Fallacy, shoehorning, cherry-picking, the Sunk Cost Fallacy, the Regressive Fallacy...

Well, you get the idea.

Now, an interesting question is, *why* are human minds so vulnerable to these *particular* kinds of errors? Why do the same ones keep coming up again and again?

The (non-evolutionist) Theist answer is deeply unsatisfying. "We make mistakes because we are imperfect" is not an explanation, it merely restates the question. "We're imperfect because we're imperfect" is not especially compelling, and one detects the whiff of the sleeping pills with the "dormative virtues".

However, one of the many bright stars in the galaxy of evidence for evolution is that it *does* have an explanation for why the human mind should go astray in such recognizable, repeatable ways: our cognitive development, like all other aspects of our evolution, is constrained by our evolutionary history as social primates on the African plains. These constraints entail that, among other things, beliefs that make us "feel good", beliefs that "help strengthen tribal solidarity", and beliefs that allow us to interact with and manipulate pack hierarchy will continue to influence the way we make inferences in the present day.

Evolutionary psychology is a blossoming research program, with experiments and study going on at every major university in the world. It makes testable, verifiable predictions and operates to form this data into a coherent whole which exhibits consilience with the rest of human knowledge, as well as suggesting ways in which modern clinical psychiatry can develop new and more effective treatments of neurological disorders.

In contrast, Plantinga's "Goddidit" theory has had thousands of years to come with anything more than that one three-syllable answer. What testable predictions does "Goddidit" make? What body of data does "Goddidit" explain? Where are the laboratories I can visit to see research into "Goddidit" being carried out?

[Angrillori]

A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind
by Roy Sorensen

Was (I think) the book I was thinking of. I'll have to get home and double check.

Edit to add: Whoops! That's not it at all. It's a good book though anyways.

THIS is the one:
Inevitable Illusions : How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds
by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

Definitely a good read for anyone who thinks the human mind was "designed for producing true beliefs."

Quite scary how truly excellent the mind is at producing completely and utterly untrue beliefs.

I have a feeling that this one will be a better choice though, to cover the same material but more thouroughly and effectively.

Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory

Rudiger F. Pohl, Rudiger F. Pohl (Editor)

[Alf]

A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind
by Roy Sorensen

Was (I think) the book I was thinking of. I'll have to get home and double check.

Definitely a great read for anyone who thinks the human mind was "designed for producing true beliefs."

Quite scary how truly excellent the mind is at producing completely and utterly untrue beliefs.

Actually, in some cases this is a good thing.

For example if you see something that looks like a circle on a piece of paper - say a geometry book. Then most likely it is supposed to be a circle but if you were to look closely you would perhaps notice that it isn't really a circle. Yet, our brain fools itself into thinking it is a circle and thus simplify things.

So just because something is false it isn't necessarily bad. Some times doing simplifications like that is a good thing - of course, it then becomes bad if you make decisions based upon this false belief that would have been different if you had known that the belief was in fact false.

Alf

[RGD]

Actually, in some cases this is a good thing.

For example if you see something that looks like a circle on a piece of paper - say a geometry book. Then most likely it is supposed to be a circle but if you were to look closely you would perhaps notice that it isn't really a circle. Yet, our brain fools itself into thinking it is a circle and thus simplify things.

So just because something is false it isn't necessarily bad. Some times doing simplifications like that is a good thing - of course, it then becomes bad if you make decisions based upon this false belief that would have been different if you had known that the belief was in fact false.

Alf

That appears to be Plantinga's hang-up: he insists that things be ontologically true, rather than functionally true. Who cares? Who can tell?

A great deal of human behavior may be driven by the existence of strong and well-meaning "pattern recognition" circuitry in the brain; our gift, for example, for finding tigers based on an ear sticking out of a bush. Like most evolutionary accretions, this pattern recognition logic doesn't change as quickly as the environment of the species, so now humanity puts it to good use in things like imperfect circles and (as some have speculated) finding God.

[Aethernaut]

By the way, there is no "data" that the mind is matter ... look up the meaning of mind.

While the "mind" may be immaterial, it originates from matter and is more than likely (barring gargantuan leaps in recording technology) inseperable from the brain. In other words, it might as well be matter.

As per your request, the definition of mind:

mind
n.
1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.

3. The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality.

4. The faculty of thinking... <snip>
(emphasis mine)

If you truly want to assert that an immaterial mind can function outside a material brain I would like to see an example.

[Angrillori]

So just because something is false it isn't necessarily bad. Some times doing simplifications like that is a good thing - of course, it then becomes bad if you make decisions based upon this false belief that would have been different if you had known that the belief was in fact false.

Alf

Absolutely!

I should have clarified that too. The "mental tunnels" or shortcuts, that our brain travels can generally quickly be seen to have an evolutionary/survival advantage. The fact that our brains jump to conclusions makes a lot of sense considering that for most of evolutionary history, taking time to think things through would not help you survive at all.

Of course, as with most things, jumping to conclusions and taking shortcuts doesn't always help. Just enough to help Ugh the caveman survive better than his slower-thinking neighbor.

[breezanne]

However, minds are never observed to be independent of matter.


Yes, they are. Those observations are dismissed by materialists.

[post tenebras lux]

Yes, they are. Those observations are dismissed by materialists.
Hi Breezanne,
would you care to be a bit more informative? Such as what these observations were and where references to them can be found?

Luxie :wave:

[breezanne]

This is just a category error (seems to be error of the week). Linearity isn't matter either but it's well accommodated in any materialist philosophy. Movement isn't matter. Etc. etc.

Matter is a third person account of reality. Please identify this immaterial mind in the third person account. Switching perspective to first person and then crying foul is invalid. We can't have a first person account of matter either. So what?

Do you have trouble distinguishing mind from brain? Now THAT would be a category error.

I'm sorry, but you are arguing for a first person account of matter, matter knowing itself. Mind knows things. Matter is unable to know things.

[mirage]

Do you have trouble distinguishing mind from brain? Now THAT would be a category error.

I'm sorry, but you are arguing for a first person account of matter, matter knowing itself. Mind knows things. Matter is unable to know things.
You have utterly failed to understand a fundamental and cast-iron point. Your third sentence is nonsense. I'm not going to continue the discussion as you are not up to it, it seems.

[breezanne]

It's terribly complex in the details, but seriously: nothing about the mind's functioning is immaterial. It seems as if it is to the conscious entity, but in fact, every single function of the "mind" is indistinguishable from the corresponding functions of the brain. Mind-brain dualism is a false assumption based on the way things seem to be from an internal perspective, not unlike the rising and setting of the sun. In reality, everything you know about "mind" is in fact about the brain. This is not arriving from materialism (and I'm not going to dignify your line about "faith" with a response), but rather from modern neurological science.

-Wayne

Yes, you are a devout materialist. (Actually, mind and brain correlate and influence one another, in both directions).

[mirage]

Do you have trouble distinguishing mind from brain? Now THAT would be a category error.

I'm sorry, but you are arguing for a first person account of matter, matter knowing itself. Mind knows things. Matter is unable to know things.
Oh, I can't resist.

What perspective do you think the sentence "Matter knowing itself" is in? What perspective is the sentence "That man knows his own mind is in?" The third person. So you are wrong.

Back to the category error. The error is in not recognising separate categories. Mind is a process in the materialist view. Metabolism is also a process. Metabolism is not matter. Do you get it? Do you see how metabolism is in a different category to matter? Eh? Do you see how "experience" is also in a separate category to matter? No, not the "immaterial" category, the first person perspective phenomenon category.

You are confused and, well, wrong in your terminology. This doesn't in itself mean you are wrong about an "immaterial mind". But if you argue it, at least try to avoid some fundamental errors of reasoning.

[graymouser]

Yes, you are a devout materialist. (Actually, mind and brain correlate and influence one another, in both directions).
No scientific study has found anything of an immaterial mind that is doing influencing back toward the brain; if you think there is one, you're free to point it out, but I do insist on hard evidence.

I'm not a "devout" materialist. I'm a metaphysical naturalist, and that leads me to trust the conclusion of the evidence that materialism is true. If you have good, hard evidence to the contrary, show it. If not, your mere claims that I'm being "devout" in materialism won't get you far.

-Wayne

[breezanne]

While the "mind" may be immaterial, it originates from matter and is more than likely (barring gargantuan leaps in recording technology) inseperable from the brain. In other words, it might as well be matter.

As per your request, the definition of mind:
...

If you truly want to assert that an immaterial mind can function outside a material brain I would like to see an example.

Great definitions ... here they are again:

mind:

The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.

The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.

The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality.

The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge.

I know this dictionary well, and definitions are not listed in order of usage frequency. Only one out of four even mentions the brain. One possible materialist assumption out of four, that's pretty progressive for the 20th Century.

And that first definition presents the paradox perfectly ... no one can explain how matter can think, perceive, feel, choose, remember, or imagine. Neuroscience shows great correlations between observable aspects of mind and brain (naturally), but not how matter could give rise to any of these experiences of mind, and it provides no insight into how mind "directs and influences mental and physical behavior."

You have seen and heard examples of a human mind functioning outside of a human brain, and through immaterial chains of awareness. But a materialist must deny the existence of such phenomena to maintain their materialism, and so they do. Try not to do that, and you'll find examples on your own (all the more convincing, when acquired in the spirit of inquiry rather than as something to "defend" against).

[Y.B]

You have seen and heard examples of a human mind functioning outside of a human brain, and through immaterial chains of awareness. But a materialist must deny the existence of such phenomena to maintain their materialism, and so they do.

Ah, the Evil Materialist Conspiracy of the science journals and the scientific method. Why didn't I think of that? I just thought empirical evidence was lacking, stupid me. :rolleyes:

[abaddon]

Science purposefully limits itself, it's methodologically materialist. So why would you expect scientific studies to exist that demonstrate the immaterial? Is science really the end-all test of what is real?

Someone said naturalism doesn't necessarily exclude the immaterial. That seems more reasonable than the argument that there is no mind but only matter. And it seems more reasonable because I have no experience of matter, and never have. I do, however, live my life as if everything is material. That possibly false belief gets me through my day.

Saying it only "seems" like I am a mind contradicts my experience. And how am I to know that Dennett's arguments, or neurological studies, prove my experience is false? After all, they're still perceptions in my mind. A neurologist is a mind talking about a brain that thinks it's a mind, though according to the neuroligist's mind it is really "just a brain".

Honestly, I'm just asking for information about why my experience is to be ignored. I've seen what a brain tumor does to a person, so I see the brain-mind correlation quite easily. I assume there's an "intrasubjective" means of knowing what other minds know. But I don't see the definitive proof of materialism.

If there are some good books that cover the topic, and not just one side but both sides, I'd welcome suggestions. Thanks.

[RGD]

And that first definition presents the paradox perfectly ... no one can explain how matter can think, perceive, feel, choose, remember, or imagine.

Apparently, you don't know anything about neuroscience. You should do something about that before making unfounded statements. Start here. (http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg2b.htm)

Neuroscience shows great correlations between observable aspects of mind and brain (naturally),

Which directly contradicts your first statement. Can't you at least be logically correct within your own posts?

This is called sloppy thinking. Get over it; you'll find reality much more interesting.

but not how matter could give rise to any of these experiences of mind,

Let's see; more gross ignorance on your part? Easily remedied! (http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/cited/lieberman90uniquelyHuman.html)

and it provides no insight into how mind "directs and influences mental and physical behavior."

Ah. You mean you didn't know that we had nervous systems? Dear me, where have you been?

Here's a pretty little paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8056074&dopt=Citation) - nothing earthshaking, but useful.

You have seen and heard examples of a human mind functioning outside of a human brain, and through immaterial chains of awareness.

No, we haven't. Prove this. Provide some actual evidence. All we've got so far is your word for it - but as just demonstrated, you are clearly ignorant on this topic, so your word doesn't carry much weight.

But a materialist must deny the existence of such phenomena to maintain their materialism, and so they do.

Apparently you don't know much about the folks on this board, very few of whom are "Materialists" (you should capitalize that, you know - but that would require some understanding of spelling).

Try not to do that, and you'll find examples on your own (all the more convincing, when acquired in the spirit of inquiry rather than as something to "defend" against).

Charmingly petty. In other words, you have no examples. Isn't "bearing false witness" a sin?

[exi]

You have seen and heard examples of a human mind functioning outside of a human brain, and through immaterial chains of awareness.

What examples can you provide of a human mind functioning outside a human brain? I'd be very interested to hear about them.

[breezanne]

What perspective do you think the sentence "Matter knowing itself" is in? What perspective is the sentence "That man knows his own mind is in?" The third person. So you are wrong.

Back to the category error. The error is in not recognising separate categories. Mind is a process in the materialist view. Metabolism is also a process. Metabolism is not matter. Do you get it? Do you see how metabolism is in a different category to matter? Eh? Do you see how "experience" is also in a separate category to matter? No, not the "immaterial" category, the first person perspective phenomenon category.

You are confused and, well, wrong in your terminology. This doesn't in itself mean you are wrong about an "immaterial mind". But if you argue it, at least try to avoid some fundamental errors of reasoning.

I can't resist either ... you are claiming to be the matter in this case ... you contend that you ARE matter knowing itself. This equates "I know myself" with "matter knows itself." Strange contention, for matter has no sense of identity (only mind can even think about the meaning of "myself" and "itself"). There are good reasons for our useful ontological categories, and mind and brain are clearly distinguishable to most of us.

I know what a process is, my dear. Consciousness interacts and correlates strongly with our neurological system, and that system consists of physical processes which we can observe and study as we do digestion, respiration, etc. Consciousness/mind itself is not only unobservable (both the entity AND its processes) but it directs many bodily processes on many levels (levels of human mind keep our body functioning, but do many other things as well, like math and love and debate and create).

[breezanne]

No scientific study has found anything of an immaterial mind that is doing influencing back toward the brain; if you think there is one, you're free to point it out, but I do insist on hard evidence.

I'm not a "devout" materialist. I'm a metaphysical naturalist, and that leads me to trust the conclusion of the evidence that materialism is true. If you have good, hard evidence to the contrary, show it. If not, your mere claims that I'm being "devout" in materialism won't get you far.

-Wayne

Wayne,
There is no "evidence" of materialism. Materialism is not the same thing as "material science"; the latter is true as far as we know (it represents what we "know"). Materialism is a conte