Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God....

[Stranger]

Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.

Yes we do tend to invent invisible beings (not just gods) probably for the same reason we see faces in clouds and fire, and it probably was an evolutionary advantage to over-recognise agency and other creatures.

That is a long way from saying "we can't understand anything unless we assume God". And as Prof Davey has pointed out, the success of science is very good evidence that we do, through science at least, understand the world remarkably well.

The argument that this couldn't have happened via evolution without some god, really is a non-starter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes we do tend to invent invisible beings (not just gods) probably for the same reason we see faces in clouds and fire, and it probably was an evolutionary advantage to over-recognise agency and other creatures.

That is a long way from saying "we can't understand anything unless we assume God".

That isn't the claim the counterclaim of which is you do not need God or the supernatural to understand REALITY.

[Roses]

That isn't the claim the counterclaim of which is you do not need God or the supernatural to understand REALITY.

Which of course you don't.

[Stranger]

That isn't the claim...

It was the claim of the argument Steve brought up in #6.

[Stranger]

Is the universe rational?

Do you mean in the sense of logically consistent? If so, it appears to be, yes.

Why should it be rational?

I don't know, but if it wasn't (at least locally) then it's difficult to see how it could contain intelligent observers.

Isn't the idea that the universe conforms to our evolved rationality just a sophisticated version of Adams Puddle and hole analogy?

Are you suggesting more than one version of logical consistency?

[ProfessorDavey]

You are perilously close to saying science established what reality is rather than chipping away to discover reality. The old invention/discovery thing.

Which bit of the word understand did you fail to get Vlad.

My whole point was about the value of science in understanding reality - in other words discovery. Where did I ever suggest that science invented reality - I didn't, not even close.

[Stranger]

If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.

Thought I remembered this, here is Daniel Dennett on the subject: Plantinga's Attempted Reductio ad Absurdum of Naturalism.

[wigginhall]

One problem with Plantinga's argument, is that it seems to treat cognitive operations by the brain as somehow suspect, whereas operations by other organs are reasonably reliable.  Of course, you could go nuclear and say nothing is reliable, but you contradict that immediately by using your faculties to make breakfast.  Pragmatically, the body works well enough.  (Repeating Dennett really.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which bit of the word understand did you fail to get Vlad.

My whole point was about the value of science in understanding reality - in other words discovery. Where did I ever suggest that science invented reality - I didn't, not even close.

So not really pertinent to the central declaration that God or the supernatural are not necessary to understand reality and thus not relevant to the thread.

You also confuse science with naturalism on which the declaration is made.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you mean in the sense of logically consistent? If so, it appears to be, yes.

So there is no logical inconsistency going down/on in the universe anywhere?

[wigginhall]

There is also the amusing corollary that the argument that reason is suspect, is then itself suspect.  This is quite like presuppositionalism, horror, horror.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One problem with Plantinga's argument, is that it seems to treat cognitive operations by the brain as somehow suspect, whereas operations by other organs are reasonably reliable.  Of course, you could go nuclear and say nothing is reliable, but you contradict that immediately by using your faculties to make breakfast.  Pragmatically, the body works well enough.  (Repeating Dennett really.)

I think Plantigna is having a dig at the New atheists who are more than prone to calling psychological incompetence.... except of course when it comes to them for they have risen above it ...in a non evolutionary way funnily enough.

[wigginhall]

It's striking how these arguments, like Plantinga's, often use words like "merely" and "simply", hence we are merely the result of unguided evolution, hint, not the magnificent result of an all-powerful intelligence, which doesn't do merely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's striking how these arguments, like Plantinga's, often use words like "merely" and "simply", hence we are merely the result of unguided evolution, hint, not the magnificent result of an all-powerful intelligence, which doesn't do merely.

To be fair the same sorts of thing are suggested by naturalists...i.e. "We are just a sophisticated ape"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thought I remembered this, here is Daniel Dennett on the subject: Plantinga's Attempted Reductio ad Absurdum of Naturalism.

He seems to counteract his own view of evolution and psychological competence which he classes with the admirable functionality of other evolved features and yet suspends in the case of religion.

We are left wondering, if not evolution, what declares God to be unnecessary and are back to a circular naturalist philosophy.

[jeremyp]

If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning,

Sorry, I don't see how that shows that we can't do valid reasoning.

so how can we trust our reasoning,

Well since our thoughts and reasonings are the result of chemical and electrical changes in the brain, just ask yourself what you do to trust a line of reasoning, and there's your answer.

Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.

nah.

[jeremyp]

All I've done so far...

Exactly.

I requested counter examples to the initial statement. You could have shot it down by providing them. Instead you burble on about stupid hammer and nail analogies.

Clearly, you do not have counter examples to the initial statement which therefore still stands.

[jeremyp]

Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.

There's no separate "you" for your brain to convince. You are your brain.

Anyway, this brain is definitely not convinced there is a god although it does entertain the idea that it is evolutionarily advantageous to believe in God.

In fact, thinking about it, going along with the group think has always had an evolutionary advantage. Historically, not toeing the official ideological line has been quiet unhealthy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly.

I requested counter examples to the initial statement. You could have shot it down but providing them. Instead you burble on about stupid hammer and nail analogies.

Clearly, you do not have counter examples to the initial statement which therefore still stands.

The initial statement is a form of cosmic view.... what examples demonstrate it? How can you possibly think you have provided examples for the initial statement.

There is no demonstration that it's true.

We've come this far Jeremy and the trump card against you has not been played.

[jeremyp]

The initial statement is a form of cosmic view.... what examples demonstrate it?

Oh sorry. I thought that was pretty obvious. Science has had enormous success in improving our understanding of reality in spite of explicitly not assuming God.

Other methodologies, including things like religion have got nowhere.

Now, where are your counter examples to the initial statement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's no separate "you" for your brain to convince. You are your brain.

Given then your proposition here of the illusion of self....what is it that is being illuded.

[jeremyp]

Given then your proposition here of the illusion of self....what is it that is being illuded.

Please put that in English.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh sorry. I thought that was pretty obvious. Science has had enormous success in improving our understanding of reality.

Oh dear science is not naturalism Jeremy. How stupid of you.

[Enki]

If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.

It might be an argument against it, but it doesn't get you very far, as the alternative is no less true. Simply because our thoughts are arguably deterministic in origin is no reason to think that they must be invalid.


What seems to me to be important here is to judge whether our reasoning is reliable. If we fall sick after eating a certain type of fungi, then our reasoning would suggest that one wouldn't fall sick if we avoided it. If this is borne out by avoiding said fungi, then our reasoning has proved to be reliable. I would argue that evolution has given us the capability of finding out what is reliable and what is not as regards our environment, and we have discovered that the world seems to work by a basic process of cause and effect.

[jeremyp]

Oh dear science is not naturalism Jeremy. How stupid of you.

Who cares? The initial quote doesn't talk about naturalism.

Counter examples please.