Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9045
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby Kurieuo » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:57 pm

I don't know Morny.

If you couldn't tell I tired of our exchanges a page or two back when I tried being mean to you.
Perhaps we just walk away on this one?

I'll leave it at the following I think with you.
Feel free to respond and I may get back in a month or so.

BUT, I think Plantinga's argument (detailed as E and N => ~R) is a valid argument.
By that I mean that the conclusion follows from the premises.

I think R is clearly true however.
Which results in E or N (or E and N) not being true.

Keep in mind that Plantinga isn't about proving that we can't trust our rationality.
So that is not really his argument at all. It is that Evolution and Naturalism are incompatible if we do accept our rational thinking as true.

So push backs on Plantinga's argument tend to focus upon the truth of R.
Something like species would not survive if they had false beliefs, therefore evolution and its survival of the fittest will generally result those lifeforms which have true beliefs surviving. Great. So now we now that R is true, and the E is true. What about N?

If Plantinga's argument is valid, then N must not be true.
And by N it is meant a world where only the natural world exists without the existence of any intelligent being like God planning or guiding any natural processes. Nature is simply following unguided and random processes.

So, I've been as explicit here as I think is possible.
You have your final words.

Much respect to you (depsite any disrespectful comments herein).

Kurieuo
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

jonesm
Acquainted Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:18 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby jonesm » Thu May 18, 2017 3:44 pm

Hello Kurieuo

It has been some time since the last post, but I came across this thread again and noticed your post and it seems to me to repeat the same mistake about the EAAN.
You write E+N=-R is valid. Then claim that as R and E are true, N must be false. However, R is clearly not true, evidenced by the very many false beliefs held. If E+N=-R is valid then N is true.
Regards
Jonesm

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9045
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby Kurieuo » Thu May 18, 2017 9:08 pm

So your mind or rationality (R) is telling you that there are many false beliefs, just not yours? Did our brains, and minds as such if we indeed reduce the mind to our brain and natural processes, evolve for survival?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9045
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Postby Kurieuo » Mon May 29, 2017 9:47 pm

This thread caught my attention again. It seems to me, that criticisms of the EAAN argument often lack an understanding of what is being argued.

When Plantinga says there is a "defeater" for 'E' (Evolution) and 'N' (Naturalism) given 'R' (rationality) can't be trusted, he's not necessarily arguing that 'E' or 'N' isn't true. Rather it is more the case that 'E' and 'N' along with any other belief we hold to for that matter, lacks warrant or justification because 'R' (which can't be trusted) is always being used to prove such beliefs. Whether or not 'E' or 'N' is true, well it may/may not be, but we just can never justify such either way. Perhaps it is more an argument for anti-rationalism than anything else. Thus, the person who believes in both 'E' and 'N' are unbeknown to themselves being anti-rational.

Case in point is where you (Jonesm) say, "R is clearly not true, evidenced by the many false beliefs had." Well, if 'R' (rational faculities) are clearly faulty, then nothing warrants belief. Why? For any belief that has warrant comes via rationality, but if our rational faculties are faulty, then any warrant for beliefs are lost too. This includes 'E' and 'N' as well as basically any belief.

What is absurd, is for people like perhaps yourself, who'd in their next breath argue that 'E' and 'N' are both true (which leads to 'R' not being trusted). You're in effect pulling the rug out from underneath yourself, cutting off the branch on which you are sitting. For if our rational faculties can't be trusted, then neither can we rationally argue 'E' and 'N' are true; OR, if we argue 'E' and 'N' are true then how can we trust our rational faculties which arose in a world via such processes alone by pure accident? This, is really a knock down argument, not against the truth of 'N' and 'E' per se, not against 'R', but rather against a rationally coherent or justified secular belief system that says both 'N' and 'E' are true.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: trulyenlightened and 4 guests