Re - Evolution vs. Naturalism
Free Statistics / Probability Video Lesson
Re - Evolution vs. Naturalism
This is a response to Veritas48's latest video series about Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UKrrY281r4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism In a nut shell, Plantinga argues that evolution (in the naturalistic sense, unaided by god) has a low probability of producing reliable cognitive faculties. Without such reliable cognitive faculties, the odds of forming true believe are low. If the odds that our having true beliefs is low, then we should rationally not believe we have true belief. If we should rationally not think that we have true believe then we should not have confidence in our beliefs based on our cognitive faculties, such as our believe in naturalistic evolution. The first major problem with this argument is that it makes the wrong headed assertion that there would be no selective pressure to form senses that render more or less accurate information about the external world. One simply needs to ask themselves "which has a greater survival value? Eye that tell me more or less what is out actually in front of me, or eye that more or less render my head up my ass?". Clearly, if there truly is an external world, our senses evolved to attune with it. Also, when it comes to forming beliefs and inferences about the external world, again, getting things correct poses a greater survival value then believing gibberish and making bad inferences. So, I reject the claim that the odds that evolution would give us unreliable cognitive faculties, and instead argue that the opposite is far more plausible, given a moment's reflection. Second, if god designed our cognitive faculties, then the fact that they are less then 100% accurate is just another example of "god's mysterious ways". No to mention the fact that we have to use said cognitive faculties to think, argue and convince ourselves that god has done any such thing. Therefore, such a position is equally "self defeating". From: tooltime9901 Views: 1810 156 ratings Time: 08:51 More in People & Blogs
This is a response to Veritas48's latest video series about Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UKrrY281r4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism In a nut shell, Plantinga argues that evolution (in the naturalistic sense, unaided by god) has a low probability of producing reliable cognitive faculties. Without such reliable cognitive faculties, the odds of forming true believe are low. If the odds that our having true beliefs is low, then we should rationally not believe we have true belief. If we should rationally not think that we have true believe then we should not have confidence in our beliefs based on our cognitive faculties, such as our believe in naturalistic evolution. The first major problem with this argument is that it makes the wrong headed assertion that there would be no selective pressure to form senses that render more or less accurate information about the external world. One simply needs to ask themselves "which has a greater survival value? Eye that tell me more or less what is out actually in front of me, or eye that more or less render my head up my ass?". Clearly, if there truly is an external world, our senses evolved to attune with it. Also, when it comes to forming beliefs and inferences about the external world, again, getting things correct poses a greater survival value then believing gibberish and making bad inferences. So, I reject the claim that the odds that evolution would give us unreliable cognitive faculties, and instead argue that the opposite is far more plausible, given a moment's reflection. Second, if god designed our cognitive faculties, then the fact that they are less then 100% accurate is just another example of "god's mysterious ways". No to mention the fact that we have to use said cognitive faculties to think, argue and convince ourselves that god has done any such thing. Therefore, such a position is equally "self defeating". From: tooltime9901 Views: 1810 156 ratings Time: 08:51 More in People & Blogs
