• Philosopher: Why you can't be both an evolutionist and a materialist

    In "Evolution vs. Naturalism: Why they are like oil and water", philosopher Alvin Plantinga comments (Books & Culture, July/August 2008),

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    As everyone knows, there has been a recent spate of books attacking Christian belief and religion in general. Some of these books are little more than screeds, long on vituperation but short on reasoning, long on name-calling but short on competence, long on righteous indignation but short on good sense; for the most part they are driven by hatred rather than logic. Plantinga immediately cites with approval some more intellectually respectable atheist works. But in general, many people have noticed the trend he points to. Hatred can sometimes drive good writing, but not usually good reasoning. Indeed, most of the recent "new atheist" books remind me of anti-immigration tracts. "Anti" zealots tend to sound pretty much alike after a while. Plantinga goes on to say, blcok1 Nearly all of these books have been written by philosophical naturalists. I believe it's extremely important to see that naturalism itself, despite the smug and arrogant tone of the so-called New Atheists, is in very serious philosophical hot water: one can't sensibly believe it.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Why?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Naturalists like to wrap themselves in the mantle of science, as if science in some way supports, endorses, underwrites, implies, or anyway is unusually friendly to naturalism. In particular, they often appeal to the modern theory of evolution as a reason for embracing naturalism; indeed, the subtitle of Dawkins' Watchmaker is Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Many seem to think that evolution is one of the pillars in the temple of naturalism (and "temple" is the right word: contemporary naturalism has certainly taken on a religious cast, with a secular priesthood as zealous to stamp out opposing views as any mullah). I propose to argue that naturalism and evolution are in conflict with each other. but The first thing to see is that naturalists are also always or almost always materialists: they think human beings are material objects, with no immaterial or spiritual soul, or self. We just are our bodies, or perhaps some part of our bodies, such as our nervous systems, or brains, or perhaps part of our brains (the right or left hemisphere, for example), or perhaps some still smaller part. So let's think of naturalism as including materialism. And now let's think about beliefs from a materialist perspective. According to materialists, beliefs, along with the rest of mental life, are caused or determined by neurophysiology, by what goes on in the brain and nervous system. Neurophysiology, furthermore, also causes behavior. According to the usual story, electrical signals proceed via afferent nerves from the sense organs to the brain; there some processing goes on; then electrical impulses go via efferent nerves from the brain to other organs including muscles; in response to these signals, certain muscles contract, thus causing movement and behavior. ...

    Your beliefs may all be false, ridiculously false; if your behavior is adaptive, you will survive and reproduce.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    In short, if you are a materialist, you can never hope to know that materialism is true because there is no direct relationship between your beliefs and evidence; your beliefs are merely the output of irrational forces. Read the rest here.

    One can have philosophy without God, to be sure, but not without a mind that is real, rather than an illusion.

    Also, just up at The Mindful Hack:

    The neuroscientist and Shakespeare - no, actually, this is The neuroscientist and Shakespeare - no, actually, this is fun!

    Coffee break! Why two heads are NOT better than one!

    The Spiritual Brain: Vindicating Alfred Russel Wallace, the "other" discoverer of natural selection?

    Neuroscience: why the carrot and the stick motivates donkeys but not people

    Religion: It got started to avoid the spread of disease?

    Prayer: Asking for more than healing

    Prayer: Are studies of intercessory prayer an insult to God?

    What we see is as much reality as we can deal with

    | oleary's blog | login or register to post comments | 0 points
    Submitted by oleary on Wed, 2008-08-13 13:32.

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    4freedom | Wed, 2008-08-13 20:59

    A summary (from of all places, Wikipedia):

    "In Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, he argues that the truth of evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism (i.e. if evolution is true, it undermines naturalism). His basic argument is that if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one's success at "feeding, fighting, and reproducing"), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true. Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-cum-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. On the other hand, if God created man "in his image" by way of an evolutionary process (or any other means), then Plantinga argues our faculties would probably be reliable."

    I think I sort of get what he is trying to say, but it seems to me that there are a few flaws in this argument. It's not the sort of thing I'd want to use next time I debate a Darwinist! I'm a Christian but I do not think this is a good argument against Naturalism / Materialism - it just does not make any sense!

    For example supposing that human beings evolved to produce "useful" rather than "true" that only means that some of those beliefs will be false. It does not imply that all of our beliefs are false. So supposing that our allegedly materialistic minds were fallible it would not therefore follow that all beliefs must be fallible.

    Most materialists and Chrstians agree that the most useful beliefs are the TRUE ones. It's generally not much use to believe things which are demonstrably false (e.g. "It's fun to pet hungry tigers"). Likewise I think we would all agree that in science "truth" and "usefulness" have much the same meaning.

    The fact that a great proportion of human beings is fallible about a great many topics might suggest (if we believe Plantinga's argument) that we are not created in God's image.

    I'm Christian - I'm not a materialist but I wouldn't be in a hurry to use this argument - not because I dispute Alvin's conclusion but because it's simply a bad argument.

    4Freedom!

    ---
    "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads you" - Michael Behe

    login or register to post comments | 0 points
    johnadavison | Fri, 2008-08-15 10:32

    Certain facts cannot be denied. Homo sapiens is a relative newcomer, having been present a mere 100,000 years. Homo sapiens is first and foremost an animal with animal ancestors. All evidence indicates that Homo sapiens was the last mammalian species that will ever appear.

    Until a mere two centuries ago we were in reasonable balance with our environment. During that two centuries we have so disturbed the balance of nature that the earth is rapidly, and probably irreversibly, losing its capacity to support higher life. Like nearly every other species that ever existed, we too are doomed to ultimate extinction. Since creative evolution is no longer in progress, it is my opinion that the present biota is the last one that will ever exist. I do not believe that evolution will ever be resumed. Just as ontogeny terminates irreversibly with the death of the individual so too does phylogeny terminate with the extinction of its products. We are now in the terminal phase of what I believe was a "prescribed" sequence which unfortunately will soon be completed with oblivion.

    "We have met the enemy and it is us."
    Pogo

    I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

    "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    login or register to post comments | 0 points

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.