Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Argument from Reason by C.S Lewis

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 4:58:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Which one? You mean the one that follows the lines of not being able to trust our reason if naturalism were true?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:29:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can only remember his one quote on it. I don't think it has much to say about dualism and didn't really prove God. It was more of an attack on a certain aspect of naturalism which was interesting and dwelt on some truths.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 4:48:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just curious.

For a moment, let's pretend the world was created as atheists imagine, with just evolution and no god in mind. According to Evolutionary Theory, we have reached a point that while our fast, under-stress decisions almost never adhere to the idealized "rational man," it is possible with retrospective to consider abstract concepts.

If this is so, what obstacle is there for us to say "'A=A' is true" that would not also apply under evolution with a god?
AshleysTrueLove
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 8:26:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The father of this version of the AR is none other than Alvin Plantinga. He attempts to show that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution does not lead to rational belief-formation. Rather, it makes naturalism quite improbable. Formally, the argument appears thus:

P(R/N&E)

Where R is the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, and N and E stand for the conjunction of naturalism and evolution, respectively. Simply put, the argument states that since naturalism itself is not interested in anything, nevermind rational agents, and evolution only suggests that survival-enhancing traits are passed on, we have good reason to reject the idea that naturalism plus evolution produce reliable cognitive faculties.

The best way out for the naturalist is to attempt to show some connection between rationality and survival. However, it seems that for every example of veridical accuracy one can substitute some other representational scheme and the behavioral effect is the same. For example, if I come across what is really a poisonous snake yet I represent it as something I find equally distasteful, something like a tarantula or even a similar snake, why should I think that there is anything lost in my misrepresentation (behaviorally, that is)?

Without any way of connecting the reliability of our cognitive faculties and naturalistic evolution, it would seem that we have some very good reasons for disbelieving any naturalistic narrative of our cognitive development." Victor Reppert
Thats the obstacle.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 1:15:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 8:26:35 PM, AshleysTrueLove wrote:
"The father of this version of the AR is none other than Alvin Plantinga. He attempts to show that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution does not lead to rational belief-formation. Rather, it makes naturalism quite improbable. Formally, the argument appears thus:

P(R/N&E)

Where R is the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, and N and E stand for the conjunction of naturalism and evolution, respectively. Simply put, the argument states that since naturalism itself is not interested in anything, nevermind rational agents, and evolution only suggests that survival-enhancing traits are passed on, we have good reason to reject the idea that naturalism plus evolution produce reliable cognitive faculties.

The best way out for the naturalist is to attempt to show some connection between rationality and survival. However, it seems that for every example of veridical accuracy one can substitute some other representational scheme and the behavioral effect is the same. For example, if I come across what is really a poisonous snake yet I represent it as something I find equally distasteful, something like a tarantula or even a similar snake, why should I think that there is anything lost in my misrepresentation (behaviorally, that is)?

Without any way of connecting the reliability of our cognitive faculties and naturalistic evolution, it would seem that we have some very good reasons for disbelieving any naturalistic narrative of our cognitive development." Victor Reppert
Thats the obstacle.

What I don't quite understand is how positing a "God" changes whether we can trust our cognitive faculties as reliable.

All of modern neuroscience points unequivocally towards the fact that our cognitive faculties are actually quite unreliable. They work as cognitive heuristics which produce the best answer as opposed to the correct. Our cognitive faculties are "predictably irrational." Even the most supposedly "rational" thought process by an individual does not lead to an actual decision without involving predictably irrational faculties like emotions (see Antonio Damasio's research and patients with brain lesions to emotional abilities). The ability to "think rationally" is itself usually inhibited by other processes (see Joshua Green's work on fMRIs during the Trolley Problem).

There is no way, aside from walking around with an fMRI attached to your head, to self-identify when you are using rational or non-rational centers in your brain until you have reflected on them after the fact. Even then, the input you use to "reason with" has probably been distorted through many other cognitive mechanisms.

How does invoking God explain away these empirical facts?

It would seem that the idea is to stop naturalists from explaining how cognition actually works by making a brute assertion that any account of human cognition as "unreliable" cannot be epistemologically coherent.

If such people had their way, we'd be stuck in enlightenment thinking about how there is a homoncular "rational man" inside each person being sullied by desires and emotions which result in "irrational decisions."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:16:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 4:48:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm just curious.

For a moment, let's pretend the world was created as atheists imagine, with just evolution and no god in mind. According to Evolutionary Theory, we have reached a point that while our fast, under-stress decisions almost never adhere to the idealized "rational man," it is possible with retrospective to consider abstract concepts.

If this is so, what obstacle is there for us to say "'A=A' is true" that would not also apply under evolution with a god?

The Fool: No offence to some but I can't take any Religious Philosopher seriously in anyway. Its allways a conflict of interest. But I do believe such logic Laws are universal and we just are able to make use of them compared to other animals.
But other animals Makes rational decision. Or shoudl I say have ratiional pattern.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:22:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 1:15:53 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2012 8:26:35 PM, AshleysTrueLove wrote:
"The father of this version of the AR is none other than Alvin Plantinga. He attempts to show that the conjunction of naturalism and evolution does not lead to rational belief-formation. Rather, it makes naturalism quite improbable. Formally, the argument appears thus:

P(R/N&E)

Where R is the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, and N and E stand for the conjunction of naturalism and evolution, respectively. Simply put, the argument states that since naturalism itself is not interested in anything, nevermind rational agents, and evolution only suggests that survival-enhancing traits are passed on, we have good reason to reject the idea that naturalism plus evolution produce reliable cognitive faculties.

The best way out for the naturalist is to attempt to show some connection between rationality and survival. However, it seems that for every example of veridical accuracy one can substitute some other representational scheme and the behavioral effect is the same. For example, if I come across what is really a poisonous snake yet I represent it as something I find equally distasteful, something like a tarantula or even a similar snake, why should I think that there is anything lost in my misrepresentation (behaviorally, that is)?

Without any way of connecting the reliability of our cognitive faculties and naturalistic evolution, it would seem that we have some very good reasons for disbelieving any naturalistic narrative of our cognitive development." Victor Reppert
Thats the obstacle.

What I don't quite understand is how positing a "God" changes whether we can trust our cognitive faculties as reliable.

All of modern neuroscience points unequivocally towards the fact that our cognitive faculties are actually quite unreliable.

They work as cognitive heuristics which produce the best answer as opposed to the correct. Our cognitive faculties are "predictably irrational." Even the most supposedly "rational" thought process by an individual does not lead to an actual decision without involving predictably irrational faculties like emotions (see Antonio Damasio's research and patients with brain lesions to emotional abilities). The ability to "think rationally" is itself usually inhibited by other processes (see Joshua Green's work on fMRIs during the Trolley Problem).

The Fool: General rationality is compremized the in relation to higher emotional magnituds.

There is no way, aside from walking around with an fMRI attached to your head, to self-identify when you are using rational or non-rational centers in your brain until you have reflected on them after the fact. Even then, the input you use to "reason with" has probably been distorted through many other cognitive mechanisms.

How does invoking God explain away these empirical facts?

It would seem that the idea is to stop naturalists from explaining how cognition actually works by making a brute assertion that any account of human cognition as "unreliable" cannot be epistemologically coherent.

If such people had their way, we'd be stuck in enlightenment thinking about how there is a homoncular "rational man" inside each person being sullied by desires and emotions which result in "irrational decisions."

The Fool: Enlightenment thinking is the best we ever had. The best and only reall logic. If you can master a priori universal principle you go it make
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:25:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2012 3:16:33 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 9/1/2012 4:48:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm just curious.

For a moment, let's pretend the world was created as atheists imagine, with just evolution and no god in mind. According to Evolutionary Theory, we have reached a point that while our fast, under-stress decisions almost never adhere to the idealized "rational man," it is possible with retrospective to consider abstract concepts.

If this is so, what obstacle is there for us to say "'A=A' is true" that would not also apply under evolution with a god?

The Fool: No offence to some but I can't take any Religious Philosopher seriously in anyway. Its allways a conflict of interest. But I do believe such logic Laws are universal and we just are able to make use of them compared to other animals.
But other animals Makes rational decision. Or shoudl I say have ratiional pattern.

The Fool: You are not using rational In the orginal meaning of the word. You don't even need to say its. True it a tautology. Its not an inverent.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:26:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Rememeber also they can't see rationality in the brain. You can't see the MATH
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2012 3:39:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: That a horrible arguement By C.s. He is begging the quesions
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL