• Bartricks
    6k
    Ever since evolution by natural selection was conceived of, there have been worries that an evolutionary account of our intuitions will undermine the credibility of those intuitions. (The early worries were about moral intuitions, but the worry generalizes to all intuitions)

    For example, take the intuition that we have reason to think our sense-impressions resemble an external world.

    Well, if there actually is an external world that resembles the content of some sense-impressions, then clearly a reproductive advantage would be enjoyed by those whose sense-impressions did resemble the world and whose intuition told them that they have reason to believe this.

    But we do not need to posit reasons to believe anything in order for this explanation to work (or so the worry goes). We need to posit an external world and sensory faculties that generate sense-impressions whose content resembles the world. And that, combined with evolution by natural selection, will generate creatures like us: creatures who have intuitions that tell them to believe their sense-impressions are 'of' a world.

    Well, if we do not need to posit any reasons to believe things, then Ockham's razor tells us not to do so.

    The problem, however, is that this now means we have no reason to believe that there's an external world or that the theory of evolution by natural selection is true and no reason to believe anything I just argued.

    Any argument - any case - that ends by concluding that we do not have any reason to believe anything is self-undermining. For arguments are just attempts to show us what we have reason to believe.

    We can safely dismiss such arguments, then. They are, in effect, arguments against arguments. Only a fool or a scoundrel makes an argument against arguments.

    But now we have a puzzle. We cannot - without being a fool or a scoundrel - deny the reality of reasons to believe things. And so we have to admit that our intuition - which is the means by which we are aware of reasons to believe things - tells us about something real. Yet a purely evolutionary story about how we developed a faculty of intuition tells us that what they are telling us about - reasons to believe things - are not real at all, but just things it was adaptive for our ancestors to believe in.

    Does this mean we must conclude that evolution by natural selection is false? No, it just means it cannot be all encompassing. Again: any case for thinking it is all encompassing is actually a case against cases, and thus is the case of a fool. For again: if you think it is all encompassing, then it turns out that there are no reasons to believe anything, which means there's no reason to believe evolution by natural selection is true!

    But in what way does the account need supplementing? Well, the case for evolution by natural selection presupposes that there are reasons to believe things. And reasons to believe things require God. Sorry, but they do. So the case for evolution by natural selection presupposes that God exists. And it is this that shows how it could come to pass that we have a faculty of intuition that tells us about reasons to believe things. For the world that evolution by natural selection posits is a place that is deadly dangerous. It quickly kills those who fail to navigate it well. Well, wouldn't a good person try and warn people about those dangers? Wouldn't they equip those they know are living there - or destined to live there - with a faculty of intuition that would tell them how best to make use of their sensible faculties so as to be able to navigate the world more safely? I think so. Seems reasonable. And of course, those who are equipped with such a faculty will, if it is reliable and they trust it, be selected for as the world won't kill them as quickly as it does others.

    In this way, I think, we can explain why we can trust - or at least, default trust - our intuitions. Evolution by natural selection presupposes that there is an external world in which such forces of selection are operating and that we are, in some sense, 'in' it. But it also presupposes that there are reasons to believe things and thus presupposes God. And it is with those presuppositions that it gets the job done. But if you try and do without God, then the theory undermines itself as it undermines the epistemic status of all our intuitions, including those that the case for evolution by natural selection appeals to.
  • Paulm12
    116
    I wonder if you're familiar with Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism. He follows a similar line of reasoning as you do, though he makes a probabilistic case.

    Some people (I'm not super familiar with their argument) argue that theism also suffers from an issue of circularity and regress. I'm not sure I follow their argument, so I can't comment on that side.

    A forum member here made a good argument that naturalism assumes a metaphysic, so it isn't a full metaphysical stance; I'll see if I can find it.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I am familiar with his argument. It is different to mine (though this is from memory). All he does is argue that we have no more reason to think our faculties reliable than not. He doesn't say anything about the status of reasons themselves.

    My argument is different. My point is that any case for evolution by natural selection presupposes that there are reasons to believe things. And those, in turn, presuppose God. And it is the combination of God and a dangerous world that explains why we have developed fairly reliable faculties of rational intuition.
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    any case for evolution by natural selection presupposes that there are reasons to believe thingsBartricks

    No. Evolution is just a description of a process. No need to believe anything.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    So, you think there's no reason to think it's true? Read the OP again and try and understand what I'm arguing.
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    So, you think there's no reason to think it's true? Read the OP again and try and understand what I'm arguing.Bartricks

    You have the knowledge of an average college freshman. Show some modesty and do philosophy.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    You have the knowledge of an average college freshman.Jackson

    Show me how by addressing the argument in the OP. Dad.
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    Show me how by addressing the argument in the OP. Dad.Bartricks

    I am not your father.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Bit literal aren't we. I imagine you get stuck at stop signs a lot. Now: address the OP.
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    Bit literal aren't we. I imagine you get stuck at stop signs a lot. Now: address the OP.Bartricks

    I did. Clearly you cannot respond.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    And I counter-replied.

    You made the inane observation that the theory of evolution is just a description of a processs.

    That didn't address anything I'd argued in my OP, and so in a vain attempt to get you to engage with the argument I asked you whether you thought there was any reason to think it true.

    You then insulted me. And I then insulted you back much better. It's the way of things.
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    You made the inane observation that the theory of evolution is just a description of a processs.Bartricks

    It is true. It is standard.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    I didn't deny it. Now, once again, is there any reason to think it true?

    Read the OP again. Engage with the argument I made.
  • Jackson
    1.8k


    Goodnight, sweet troll.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    You're the troll matey. I made an argument and all you did was insult me (and a very wet and feeble insult it was too). Anyway, get back to your fairground, Jacko.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    And reasons to believe things require God. Sorry, but they do.Bartricks
    What are the reasons to believe "all reasons to believe things require God"?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    First, reasons to believe things are directives to believe things. Directives require a director and only a person can occupy that role. Thus, the directives of reason are the directives of a person. And that person will qualify as God precisely because all of the directives of reason are her directives.

    And then there's the indirect argument provided by my argument in the OP. It can't reasonably be denied that our faculty of reason tells us about something real (see the OP for details). Yet unless we posit God - or at least a person who is concerned, at least to some extent, about our welfare in this dangerous world - who has provided us a faculty of intuition to inform us of what we have reason to do and believe, we will be forced to conclude that our faculty of intuition tells us about nothing real. But that's a self-undermining conclusion and thus we have to suppose our faculty of intuition has been implanted in us by a person, rather than developed by blind forces of evolution alone.

    I suggest you now post a crying with laughter emoticon.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Intuitively we must abolish all religion and immediately turn all places of worship into museums or food banks, while seizing and redistributing the wealth of all religious institutions. Those who want to continue to publicly practice can be exiled to some small state in the US and treated like a reservation.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Do you trust my intuition?
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Cool, so much for the OP.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    So much for your comprehension skills. Why would I trust the intuition of a person who is unable to understand the OP or address it?
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Nah, reasons to believe things requires the radical suppression of all fantasy, which includes religion and all forms of belief in God.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Address the OP or go away.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    I'm giving the OP the treatment it deserves.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    . And reasons to believe things require God. Sorry, but they do.Bartricks

    Like, lmao. This is trash.
  • Bartricks
    6k
    No you're not. Address it or go away.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    But in what way does the account need supplementing? Well, the case for evolution by natural selection presupposes that there are reasons to believe things. And reasons to believe things require God. Sorry, but they do. So the case for evolution by natural selection presupposes that God exists.Bartricks

    Hahaha

    People are supposed to take this seriously.

    ???

    Sorry, but they don't.

    Woah, did you see the powerful argument that I put forth?
  • Bartricks
    6k
    Yes. I presented a case. It's not my fault you can't understand it. There's a big literature on evolutionary debunking arguments. There's no doubt an SEP page you can read on it. Why don't you do that, and then read the OP again. Now run along.
    And as someone has already noted above, there's a similar argument to mine that's very well known, made by Alvin Plantinga. No doubt you've read it.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    I presented a case.Bartricks

    The case in question:

    Sorry, but they do.Bartricks

    Trash.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment