Evil and Evolution Debate:Draper v. Plantinga

This is a debate hosted by the Secular Web between two important philosophers that you shouldn't miss. I will be reading through it in the coming days. Here's Draper's introduction. You can click on the Table of Contents or proceed to the debate itself from there.

14 comments:

Master Zap said...

Hey JWL,

I came up with this "new" (or new twist of an old) argument against theism. May you find it useful some day... ;)

http://atheisminsweden.blogspot.com/2007/09/argument-from-devine-delusion.html

/Z

Anonymous said...

Zap, If a God is omniscient, then by definition he knows everything. So for there to be two omniscient beings who don't know each other is a contradiction in terms.

Best to ya.

exapologist said...

The Draper v. Plantinga debate at Internet Infidels -- along with the other parts of the debate posted there -- is, without a doubt, the best debate on theism available anywhere at any time.

Steven Carr said...

Plantinga's argument relies heavily on natural selection being unlkely to produce 'reliable cognitive faculties' (presumably in much the same way that it is very unlikely that any entrant in a lottery will win the lottery)

If so, then Plantinga ought to give at least a working definition of 'reliable cognitive faculties'.

He never does, so his argument doesn't get off the ground.

Plantinga seems to equate 'reliable cognitive faculties' with 'forming true beliefs and avoiding false beliefs.

This is clearly a false equation.

If I see a 300 pound tiger coming towards me and think 'That tiger must weighn at least 5 pounds', then I have formed a true belief.

If I see a 300 pound tiger coming towards me and think 'That tiger must weighn at least 305 pounds', then I have formed a false belief.

But in which case are my cognitive faculties most reliable?

Steven Carr said...

My lottery remark was because it is very unlikely that natural selection will give species X the gift of 'reliable cognitive faculties', this is not to be confused with 'It is unlikely that natural selection will give ANY species the gift of reliable cognitive faculties'.

Plantinga's argument is similar to arguing that becaus each person has an almost negligible chance of winning a lottery, then we can discount the idea of lottery winners.

Master Zap said...

Zap, If a God is omniscient, then by definition he knows everything. So for there to be two omniscient beings who don't know each other is a contradiction in terms.


No no, you totally misunderstand.

I'm not talkign about two beings existing at the same time.

I'm talking about two hypothetical "versions" of God.

My proof demonstrates that from the point of view of the God, both are identical (isomorphic), i.e. both the God that is omniscient, and the good that is delusional and only thinks he is omniscient cannot be distinguished unless there is an external standard to compare to.

Since God - by theist definition - has no external standard to compare to, then, it is impossible to distinguish the omniscient God that really is omniscient from the non-omniscient God who thinks he is omniscient.

So, you can't accept a claim from a God that it is omniscient.

Furthermore - and this is the real kicker: As a matter of fact no God can know this difference (basically, Gödels incompleteness theorem) and hence - since there is something it "cannot know" - that falsifies omniscience itself.

I.e. my proof indisputably falsifies the concept of omniscience itself.

I'm suprised you didn't understand this, did I really express myself that poorly? (I admit, English is not my 1st language....)

/Z

Streetapologist said...

Steven Carr: Have you read anything by Plantinga besides the debate? He gives multiple examples and even delineates between Marx and Freud on the subject of reliable cognitive faculties.

You said:
Plantinga's argument relies heavily on natural selection being unlkely to produce 'reliable cognitive faculties'

I think you are missing the point here. Plantinga points out that if Marx is correct than the atheist is the only one with properly functioning cognitive faculties. This would seem to indicate that natural selection has failed as the majority of the world according to atheism is cognitively dysfunctional.

Steven Carr said...

Plantinga has to give a working definition of 'reliable cognitive faculties' in his debate, or else he loses the debate, as it is such a mjaor part of his arguments.

Of course, on the theistic world view, Plantinga teaches that there are supernatural beings highly motivated to attack his senses and reasonings, and perfectly capable of doing so.

Naturally, he leaves that part of his worldview out of his debate, as it rather spoils his claims that only the supernatural can account for the clear thinking of a Plantinga.

Steven Carr said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Carr said...

PLANTINGA
'In Warranted Christian Belief I argued that if theism is true, then very likely God would want human beings to be able to be aware of his presence and would have arranged for human beings, under certain conditions, to believe that theism is indeed true. If theism is true, then we human beings were created by God, who very likely intended that we have belief-producing processes that produce theistic belief.

CARR

Plantinga thinks our cognitive faculties are working reliably if they lead to a sensing of God.

What could those 'certain conditions' be , that lead to a sensing of God?

Clearly there could be many conditions, and we would expect these conditions to be sometimes surprising (on the naturalist world view at least)

So LSD all round , to improve the reliability of our cognitive faculties.

Many people have experienced God under the influence of LSD.

Therefore, LSD enhances the reliability of our cognitive faculties.

Take drugs - think more clearly. This is a natural consequence of Plantinga's argument.

Shygetz said...

Plantinga says: But then if what is relevant here is not just simplicity but naturalness, theism would presumably be, so far forth, epistemically more probable than naturalism.

No, belief in theism would be probable, not the theism itself.

Natural selection does not strive for perfect, it strives for the easiest path to good enough. Plantinga's argument about how "For every true adaptive belief it seems we can easily think of a false belief that leads to the same adaptive behavior" is simply irrelevant, because one must also consider that path that it would require to set up a series of false beliefs that led to true behavior. As such, it would probably be easiest to give humans cognitive faculties capable of reliability in what Dawkins calls "the middle world"; that is, on scales in which the human senses are capable of operating. The cognitive faculties outside of this middle world would simply be a side effect of our middle world cognitive faculties, and would usually offer no selective advantage.

I would indeed be surprised if our cognitive faculties were not subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns when it comes to increasing genetic fitness. Indeed, some may argue that the comparative reproduction rates between highly educated people and uneducated people may indicate that we have passed the top of the curve already, though I am not so cynical.

Also, I am not a philosopher, but when Plantinga insists that the existence of God is a necessary truth, isn't he begging the question by claiming "theism is true because God must exist?"

Streetapologist said...

SC:

Plantinga thinks our cognitive faculties are working reliably if they lead to a sensing of God.

What could those 'certain conditions' be , that lead to a sensing of God?

Clearly there could be many conditions, and we would expect these conditions to be sometimes surprising (on the naturalist world view at least)


This isn't at all what Plantinga is arguing. He is arguing that in the absence of a defeater, a justified true belief is warranted. Asserting that a belief let's call it A is untrue because one comes to a belief through an irrational method, using your example doesn't defeat the belief no matter how loudly you assert the contradictory.

Steven Carr said...

STREETAPOLOGIST
He is arguing that in the absence of a defeater, a justified true belief is warranted.

CARR
All Plantinga has to do now is show that belief in Christianity is a justified true belief.

zilch said...

streetapologist- you say
"Plantinga points out that if Marx is correct than the atheist is the only one with properly functioning cognitive faculties. This would seem to indicate that natural selection has failed as the majority of the world according to atheism is cognitively dysfunctional."

Now, I have to admit I haven't read Plantinga (I plan to), so I don't know if you're representing his position accurately. In any case, this demonstrates a false understanding of natural selection. Shygetz has already said it: evolution doesn't strive for perfect. I'll just amplify on that a bit.

Evolution is all about differential reproductive success: whatever genes make the kinds of bodies and behaviors that survive to reproduce tend to get passed on. Now, many kinds of abilities that jibe well with our modern scientific ideas of seeing the world "the way it is" are obviously good for survival: good hearing, accurate assessment of the trajectories of incoming rocks, the intelligence to perceive patterns and utilize them.

But that's not all: we have many other features that have got us where we are today. We seek food when hungry and mates when horny. We build families and social units that cooperate for the good of the larger group. And we make rules and morals and religions and governments to help organize these larger groups.

At some point in this scale of things we people do, genes begin to have less direct effects and culture kicks in. Just where and how culture interacts with instincts is of course hotly debated. But in any case, natural selection does not "try" to create beings that are not "cognitively disfunctional". Natural selection is simply the path that works: whatever leaves the most offspring.

If believing in God is genetically linked (and there's some evidence that it might be, to some extent), it might well be that it has been favored by natural selection for its enhancement of group cohesion: it's not inconceivable that those who pray together stay together. And those who do not fear death because they will go to Heaven make great soldiers.

Of course, I don't believe it likely that there's a gene for believing in Heaven. And it may be that whatever genetic tendency there is to believe in God is just our need to seek ever deeper explanations for our world run amok. Obviously, the selection of successful memes in the ideosphere has a lot to do with ideas of God and religions. And that's a whole different beast from natural selection in the biosphere.

In any case, genetic evolution doesn't give a fig whether or not God exists: the only thing that makes a difference to it is whether holding the belief (insofar as it's genetically influenced) affects the number of offspring one has.

And I suppose it needn't be pointed out that what worked well in the past, both genetic and cultural, could be problematic in our modern world.