answer the question. Do you believe there are reasons to do things? A simple yes or no.

You are saying that a reason to do something is not a cause to do something, but a directive. What's the difference?

Yes, I believe there are reasons to do things.

Yes, I believe there are reasons to do things. — Daniel

So why the f-ing hell do you keep asking me what one is and to provide you with a bloody example of one? Again: are you mental?

You: what's a chair?

Me: do you believe in chairs?

You: yes

Me: well one of those then you.....

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Argue something.

Reasons to do things are dependent on evolution (a mind like yours must come up with them, and a mind is the result of an evolutionary process). Evolution is not dependent on reasons to do things.

Address the OP.

It's impossible to understand. Your examples are very complex. No one can read your mind, and if you do not try to actually give simple examples is gonna be impossible to actually even know what you are trying to say. In addition, you are oversimplifying evolution (natural selection is not the only process that leads to evolution); furthermore, you are oversimplifying complex things like the faculty to believe. When you put an idea forward and several people do not understand it, it is not the people's fault.

COULD SOMEONE ELSE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT BARTRICKS MEANS BY REASONS-TO-DO AND WHAT THE POINT OF THE OP IS?

I asked you if you believed in reasons to do things.

You said yes.

So you know what a reason to do something is, for you believe in them yourself.

They are not causes. When you believe - as you do - that there are reasons to do things, you are not believing that things are being caused to occur, for clearly we can have reason to do something that we do not and never will do.

So you - you - know what a reason to do something is. For you believe in them. And they are not equivalent to causes of things.

When you say "the reason he died was flu" the word 'reason' is operating as a synonym for 'cause'. You are not saying that he had a reason to die. You are talking about the 'cause' of his death.

This is everso slightly complicated due to the ambiguity of the word 'reason'. This happens with words over time. They tend to become ambiguous. The word 'reason' is ambiguous. Lots and lots and lots of words are ambiguous. Indeed, the word 'lots' is ambiguous, isn't it? It can mean 'a large number' or it can mean 'items in an auction'. See? Lots and lots and lots and lots of words are ambiguous.

The word 'reason' is one of them. It can be used to denote a faculty - our faculty of reason. It can be used to denote a reason-to-do something (that's called a 'normative reason'). It can be used to denote a cause of something. That's called a causal reason. It can be used to denote the explanation of something - they're called 'explanatory reasons' (and some would argue that causal reasons and explanatory reasons are the same). And it can be used to denote where reasons-to-do things are coming from. And no doubt there are other meanings to the word too that I can't think of.

Same word, different meanings.

A 'reason to do something' - which, remember, you believe exist - is a directive to do something. That's a more substantial definition. But you already know what they are, for you believe in them.

And if we give a purely evolutionary story about how we have come to be, we won't have to make any mention of them at all.

And that's a problem.

If I am mental, you are fucked.

Why don't you read the OP?

There are reasons to do things. YOu believe in them. I believe in them. Everyone who's sensible believes in them. Indeed, everyone who possesses reason believes in them, for to possess reason is to recognize that there are reasons to do things.

So, they exist.

But - and here is the problem - an evolutionary account of our development implies they do not exist.

That's a problem, yes? They do exist. There can be no doubt about it. Yet an evolutionary account of our development implies they do not.

I explained why.

For example, it used to be the case that the appearance of design was thought to be good evidence that the world and its contents were indeed designed and thus that there was a designer of them.

But the theory of evolution by natural selection can explain why the world appears designed without having to posit a designer.

That raises a problem for those who believe the world is designed by a god or God, yes?

We can explain the appearance of design in a parsimonious way - that is, we can explain it without having to posit a designer.

Thus, the theory of evolution by natural selection would appear to undercut the so-called 'design' argument for a god.

I use this example because most of you here are atheists and you will be more able to understand a point when it leads to a conclusion you endorse.

Exactly the same point applies to reasons-to-do things. An evolutionary account of our development can explain why we believe in such things without having to posit any.

But that's a huge problem. Because they do exist.

If I am mental, you are fucked. — Daniel

No, that doesn't follow.

First off all, you provided us with an instance of a debunking kind, which oddly is (belief in) god, the very thing you say in your conclusion is necessary. Isn't that self-refuting?

Coming to the fallacy of argument by example you commited, it's like this: If I say some Americans are presidents, I could prove it with n number of examples e.g. Washington, Roosevelt, etc. However, this doesn't imply that some Americans are not presidents.

Likewise, yes, there are beliefs of the debunking kind (god :chin: ) but that doesn't mean the belief that there are reasons to believe is also one. You need a different argument for this.

The other problem with your argument is that if there are no reasons to believe anything, why on earth are you trying to offer reasons to believe you?

No.

First off all, you provided us with an instance of a debunking kind, which oddly is (belief in) god, the very thing you say in your conclusion is necessary. Isn't that self-refuting? — Agent Smith

That was to illustrate the point. Sheesh.

Here's the principle I am appealing to: if the explanation of a belief that p does not have to posit p, then the belief is debunked.

Now, it does not matter what 'p' stands for. Most of you lot are atheists and incredibly poor reasoners and you can only recognize a good argument when it leads to a conclusion you endorse. So, I take it that most of you can recognize the truth of the above principle if we make the belief in question a belief in God. For then it will be clear, even to you lot, that the principle is true: if the explanation of a person's belief in God makes no mention of God himself - so, the explanation just mentions the adaptive properties of the belief via the psychological benefits that accrue from it - then the belief is discredited.

It might still be true. But the mere fact a person is disposed to believe it does not, in itself, constitute any kind of evidence for its truth, given that we can explain why the person believes it without having to suppose that God himself exists.

Now, we can provide an evolutionary explanation of our disposition to believe that there are reasons to do things.

SO the same applies. We do not have to posit any actual reasons to believe things in order to explain, in a parsimonious manner, why people believe there are reasons to do things. Thus, the belief that there are reasons to do things is discredited if, that is, the evolutionary explanation is true.

It's called an 'evolutionary debunking argument'. If one can provide an evolutionary explanation of a belief or intuition, then - other things being equal - that explanation debunks the belief in question.

Why? Because we do not have to posit the object of the belief in order to explain the belief. And thus there is no reason to think the belief is true. For if one does not have to posit the object of the belief in order to explain why the belief is occurring, then it violates Ockham's razor to posit it.

Coming to the fallacy of argument by example you commited, it's like this: If I say some Americans are presidents, I could prove it with n number of examples e.g. Washington, Roosevelt, etc. However, this doesn't imply that some Americans are not presidents. — Agent Smith

What? No, don't just describe a fallacy. Where did I commit a fallacy? If I use an example to illustrate a point, that's not a fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. Outline my argument and show where the fallacy occurs. If you can't do that, then you don't know what you're talking about. You're just randomly throwing mud in the hope that some of it sticks.

Likewise, yes, there are beliefs of the debunking kind (god :chin: ) but that doesn't mean the belief that there are reasons to believe is also one. You need a different argument for this. — Agent Smith

It is how the belief is acquired that debunks it. And stop begging the question by insisting God does not exist! He does. Christ, you go on about fallacies entirely oblivious to all those you are committing. The fact that some beliefs that P are debunked by explanations of how they were acquired does not - not - imply that all beliefs that P are false!! That some As are Bs does not imply that all As are Bs!

Now, I am going to give an example to illustrate my point. Try and understand the point. Imagine I have been hypnotized into believing there's a cat in my garden. Now, don't ask me about my garden or about hypnotism. It's not about that. It's just an example, Okay? So, again, imagine that I have been hypnotized into believing there's a cat in my garden. That's the whole story about why I have that belief. I have the belief that there is a cat in my garden solely because I was hypnotized into it.

That explanation of my belief discredits it. Can you see that? There's absolutely no reason to think there's actually a cat in my garden. Why? Because the entire explanation of why I believe there's a cat in my garden makes no mention of any actual cat (or any actual garden).

Does that mean that all beliefs in cats in garden are debunked? No. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious. It means that that particular belief - the one the hypnotist implanted - is discredited. It does not imply that any belief in a cat in a garden, no matter how it was acquired, is debunked. Yet you think it does. Or at least, you think it does when it is a belief in God that we're talking about.

Some beliefs are discredited by how they were acquired. It doesn't matter what the belief is about, what matters - what does the discrediting - is how it was acquired. If the belief was acquired in a manner that did not involve the object of the belief, then the belief is discredited, no matter what the belief is about. It's the fact the object of the belief does not turn up in the explanation of how it was acquired that discredits it.

Now, an evolutionary explanation of how we have acquired our belief in reasons to do things will discredit those beliefs.

The other problem with your argument is that if there are no reasons to believe anything, why on earth are you trying to offer reasons to believe you? — Agent Smith

OMG. I think there ARE reasons to do things. I could not have been clearer. I said only an idiot or a scoundrel thinks they do not exist.

They exist.

The PROBLEM - for you, not me - is that an evolutionary explanation of how we have acquired our belief in them will discredit them.

So guess what? That means that an exclusive evolutionary explanation is FALSE. It does not mean that evolution by natural selection is false. It means that it can't be the whole story.

Don't get me wrong - I like the argument you're proposing, I'm a skeptic you see and nothing gets me stoked as much as an attack on reason, the be all and end all of epistemology.

To reiterate your point, there are no reasons to believe there are reasons to believe. Call this claim B. The reason you offer for this is an example of a belief, that of in god, evolutionarily useful (survival), but not entailing the reality/existence of god. Call this reason R.

Your argument:

1. R $\to$ B
2. R
Ergo,
3. B (1, 2 MP)

My issue is that an example supports but doesn't prove until and unless you want to reduce the scope of your argument to some beliefs are of the debunking kind rather than the vindicatory kind.

The task now is to prove that B is a debunking belief; R is inadequate for that purpose.

Don't get me wrong - I like the argument you're proposing, I'm a skeptic you see and nothing gets me stoked as much as an attack on reason, the be all and end all of epistemology. — Agent Smith

I'm not attacking Reason. I think there are reasons to do things. You can't make a case against them without presupposing them. So if you don't believe in reasons, you're stuck. You can't defend your disbelief, for the instant you do that you'll be appealing to the very things you think do not exist. And so all you can do is assert: all you can do is declare that you disbelieve in things that appear to exist both to you and everyone else who possesses a faculty of reason.

To reiterate your point, there are no reasons to believe there are reasons to believe. — Agent Smith

Where is that my point?

My point is that a purely evolutionary explanation of us will discredit our belief that there are reasons to do things, for we do not have to posit any to explain why we believe in them.

Note, I think reasons to do things exist. I am not arguing that they do not exist. I think they exist. I think a purely evolutionary explanation of us is demonstrably false. Demonstrably, because if true it implies there are no reasons to do things. But there are, so it is false.

1. R →→ B
2. R
Ergo,
3. B (1, 2 MP) — Agent Smith

What? English please.

My issue is that an example supports but doesn't prove until and unless you want to reduce the scope of your argument to some beliefs are of the debunking kind rather than the vindicatory kind. — Agent Smith

What? You don't know what you're talking about, yes? I can't understand what you've just said. Some beliefs are discredited by how they were acquired. WHen that happens it's called a 'debunking explanation'. Some beliefs are vindicated by the explanation of how they were acquired. Those are called vindicatory explanations. Now, if I give an illustration of the former, how the f is that to commit a fallacy?? To give illustrations of beliefs that are debunked by their explanations and illustrations of beliefs that are not debunked by their explanations is not to commit a fallacy, for it is not to argue anything. Illustrations are not arguments. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. When I illustrate a point with an example I am not arguing. I am trying to help you understand.

Do you agree that if the correct explanation of a belief does not mention the actual existence of the belief's object, then that belief is discredited?

Indeed, you're on the mark. Pardon my obtuseness.

One example (theism) of a debunking belief is sufficient to prove the claim that the belief there are reasons to believe is a debunking belief.

However, I think you shoot yourself in the foot in that your example of a debunking belief is theism and, further down the line, you go on to say atheists are wrong about there being no God.

The fallacy of argument by example you've committed is this : John, an American, is a good musician (the example); ergo (???) Adam, another American, is also a good musician — Agent Smith

I have no idea what you mean - I have said nothing remotely like that.

Do you agree that if the correct explanation of a belief does not mention the actual existence of the belief's object, then that belief is discredited?

One example (theism) of a debunking belief is sufficient to prove the claim that the belief there are reasons to believe is a debunking belief. — Agent Smith

No. It is how the belief was acquired that does the debunking. It doesn't matter what the belief is.

My belief that there is a cat in the garden is debunked if I acquired it through hypnotic suggestion.

That doesn't mean that beliefs in cats have been debunked! It means THAT belief - my one - was debunked.

Again: it is how the belief was acquired that debunks it. Any belief - any belief - that has been acquired in a way that did not involve its object, is debunked.

Do you agree that if the correct explanation of a belief does not mention the actual existence of the belief's object, then that belief is discredited? — Bartricks

Do bear with me, I'm slow. This $\uparrow$ is the right place to start. I concur with it (somewhat).

True, if the explanation for a belief x doesn't require the reality/existence of x then, that belief is debunked x is unnecessary.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need of that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace

Correct. So, this premise is true:

1. If the correct explanation of a belief that p does not invoke the actual existence of p, then the belief is debunked because we do not have to posit p.

And to that we add this premise:

2. A purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things does not have to invoke the actual existence of any reasons to do things

From which it follows that:

3. If a purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things is correct, then our belief that there are reasons to do things is debunked because we do not have to posit any actual reasons to do things.

Note, that conclusion does not assert that there are no reasons to do and believe things or that our belief in such things has actually been debunked. It says 'if'.

This premise is also true:

4. There are reasons to do and believe things and the correct explanation of our belief in reasons to do and believe things does invoke the actual existence of such things.

From which it follows:

5. Therefore, a purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things is incorrect.

'if'. — Bartricks

That's the word I was looking for! I'm sold on your idea!

It's been there all along. At no point have I asserted that there are no reasons to do or believe things. As I said in the OP, only a fool or a scoundrel thinks there are no reasons to do or believe things.

Their reality - and the fact our belief in such things is not of a sort that can be debunked - tells us something. It tells us that a purely evolutionary account of our development is false.

In my haste to critique your argument, I must've missed it. As I said earlier, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Carry on.

Carry on. — Agent Smith

Well, if an unassisted evolutionary story about our development implies that there are no reasons to do or believe anything in reality, then that story is wrong, isn't it?

There are reasons to do things. One can't make a case against their existence without assuming them. It is hard to see how something's existence can be more certain than that.

What does this tell us? It tells us that some form of 'assisted' evolution by natural selection is true. Why? Because:

1. If unassisted evolution by natural selection is true, then there are no reasons to do things
2. There are reasons to do things
3. Therefore unassisted evolution by natural selection is false

And assuming that this premise is true:

4. Evolution by natural selection is true

And that this is also true:

5. Evolution by natural selection is either assisted or unassisted

Then this follows

6. Therefore assisted evolution by natural selection is true

Well, what would assist it? We know that reasons to do things exist, for their existence is as certain as can be. What we need, then, is a theory about what reasons are, that would actually predict that we would have a faculty of intuition that would tell us that we have reason to do what we seem, intuitively, to have reason to do.

Why? Because that's how you get a vindicatory explanation. For then our explanation of why we believe we have reason to do this and reason to do that will make mention of our actually having reason to do this or reason to do that.

An unassisted evolutionary account of how we have acquired our beliefs in reasons to do things makes no mention of any actual reasons to do things, and thus debunks all of those beliefs.

So, what we need is an account of how we have acquired our beliefs in reasons to do things that 'vindicates' those beliefs (at least approximately).

@Bartricks

True that if it can be shown the belief that there are reasons to believe x is independent of actual reasons to believe x then the belief is debunked for the simple reason that x's existence/reality is immaterial to the belief itself.

There are such beliefs e.g. theism (the existence of an actual god is unnecessary because belief in god has another reason that has nothing to do with a real god).

Take note of the underlined words above.