Apropos Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (PDF), and possibly also relevant to a long discussion here:
I had a similar reaction, at first, to “argumentative theory,” a trendy new explanation of why human reason so often leads people astray. The cognitive psychologists Hugo Mercier of the University of Pennsylvania and Dan Sperber of the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris assert that our reasoning ability, like speech and other cognitive tools, evolved back in the Stone Age, and natural selection favored reasoning not for solitary truth-seeking but for arguing with others. In other words, Og, our primordial forefather, would enjoy more, ahem, reproductive success by persuading his band mates that he’s right—Chew a horny toad and your mate will bear you a son!—than by actually being right. We, Og’s ancestors, share his “confirmation bias,” the tendency to concoct as much evidence or pseudo-evidence as possible for our points of view and to ignore contrary evidence.
[From Cross-check: Winning Argument: As a "New" Critique of Reason, Argumentative Theory Is Trite but Useful --- a Scientific American blog]
Note what evolution is after if this is true (whatever that might mean, if this is true… if this is true… if this is true…). The answer: we’re not designed to pursue what’s true, but to (ahem)…
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
I’ve always been wholly unimpressed with arguments that are fashioned after Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, and more broadly with speculative evolutionary psychology on these points. Anyways, I’m not entirely sure if what your suggesting Tom, mistakes a descriptive fact for a normative fact.
It’s a fact that people are prone to using poor argumentation. That’s a descriptive fact, but that’s hardly surprising. I’ve been arguing for a normative claim, about what people should do. I take it that we have to do the best with the tools we’ve got, and be willing to revise those tools as we get more true beliefs.
lambda.calc:
I take it that we have to do the best with the tools we’ve got, and be willing to revise those tools as we get more true beliefs.
No argument there lc, but the ‘get more true beliefs’ troubles me. There’s a unargued philosophical bias here. As if truth is constantly on the move, and we need to keep step with it. Depends on what constitutes truth doesn’t it?
Steve, nothing I’ve written suggests that truth is constantly on the move. I’m sorry that you seem to be unable/unwilling to work with what I’ve written. I’m afraid that I will no longer engage with you on any matters in this blog since you seem to be incapable of having a rational discussion.
Dear lc,
Yeah, right. Back out when you can’t ‘control’ the dialog to your liking. Intellectual schizophrenia.
I asked you a question: ” What constitutes truth?”, and you come back with that?
Steve, I hate to say it, but I don’t see anything in what lambda.calc that implies “truth is constantly on the move.” Based on other things he’s written, I don’t think there’s any indication anywhere that he’s a relativist with regard to truth. I don’t see it in this snippet either. “Get more true beliefs” could most naturally be interpreted as, “learn new things that are true,” and to assume it means something else, and to challenge it as you have done based on that assumption, does not seem right to me.
Tom,
Okay, so let’s assume that lc ‘mean’s’ that we are constantly learning new things that are true. Where do we learn those things? Science? Math? If I have misunderstood lc, then I ask him to explain himself. You say that lc is not a relativist as regards to truth. I take that as true, yet lc remains an athiest. Hmmm, his ‘truth’ that there is no God, or that there is no evidence that God exists is ‘convincing’ proof? I am asking him to explain ‘what constitutes truth’, and to explain ‘the truth’ that convinces him to be an athiest. His quote above and his assumption was that we revise our tools as we get more true beliefs. Are there more ‘tools’ coming down the road for lc in his lifetime to ‘convince’ him that God exists? What about his son or daughter’s lifetime? Maybe then? But it will be too late for lc since he’ll already be dead? Wow, lc might have missed the boat there, right? What about lc’s father or mother, since the ‘tools’ we use to get at truth are still ‘out there’? Haven’t quite got all of it quite yet, and maybe not even in lc’s son or daughter’s lifetime. Is it that lc is waiting for the right tools to get at truth to become so evident that he can acquiesce to them in his lifetime? Let’s have lc explain those tools. Maybe we can all benefit from them then.
Those are reasonably good questions in the right context, Steve. The fact remains that you accused him of backing out because he couldn’t control the dialog to his liking, when I think it’s quite possible he backed out because he didn’t care to deal with misunderstandings/misrepresentations such as yours in #2 here.
I understand that your intentions are to represent the truth of Christianity, and to raise strong objections against anything that opposes that truth. I agree with you strongly in that.
There is at the same time a matter of speaking with grace, seasoning our speech “with salt” (Colossians 4:5,6), and making every effort to speak the truth with love (Ephesians 4:15). It seems to me that your comments #2 and #4 (esp. #4) were not based on the truth of the situation, and therefore also not exemplifying grace.
I would suggest that an apology for that might be in order, before trying to proceed to other discussion.
Tom,
This is now the second time that lc has faux claimed that he will not dialog and not ‘engage’ because of claims that I have misunderstood him. The problem is that I understand his position too well and every time I seek to delve deeper he brings up the ruse ‘You misunderstand me, I’m not going to dialog with you anymore’. It’s a cop-out. If anything I post is a misrepresentation then in a normal give and take each party is free to clarify their views and move on in dialog. LC fails to do this because of the position it puts him, in respect to answering the ‘deeper’ questions. I enjoy your blog Tom, but if we’re going to coddle the skeptics and atheists and grieve over their hurt feelings, furthering and endearing their position in sin, then maybe this is ‘not’ the blog for me. Blessings.
My commitment is to pursue truth and grace (John 1:14), and that means a commitment to truth in my own interactions. My commitment is also not to “coddle” sin in myself. If I misrepresent another blogger and fail to correct my error, that’s wrong. It’s wrong even if they are also wrong, even if they are more wrong than me. I have to look to my own ways before I can look to others’.
I do not see the connection between grieving over their hurt feelings and furthering/endearing their position in sin, if it’s hurt that I have needlessly caused by my own error. It’s not a matter of grieving with them anyway; it’s a matter of correcting the problem I’m responsible for that caused their hurt.
You have assumed that you know why LC “fails” to take part in give-and-take. You are assuming you understand his heart in ways that he has not revealed. You can see his outward appearance (on this blog, that is), but it is God who sees his heart (1 Sam. 16:7). Even his outward appearance does not seem quite the way you see it: his continuing so long with Neil and me and others indicates to me that he is not unwilling to have his views strenuously challenged. He is not copping out there, which lends support to my belief that something else is going on here besides that.
I share this as a brother to a brother. I urge you to consider John 1:14,17; Colossians 4:5,6, Eph. 4:15, and other related verses.
Hi Lc,
In the spirit of the forgiveness that Jesus the Christ has forgiven me, I ask for your forgiveness in misunderstanding what you have said, and for assuming a position you may not have iterated. Because of what Christ has done for me on the cross, I apologize. May I offer a suggestion? If you and I are to dialog, (solely up to you now), may I suggest that you do not reply that I am misunderstanding you and fail to answer your questions, seeking to back out of any discussion, but that you reply by restating your position and clarifying where I may have misunderstood you? You are free to comeback with any questions you think are appropriate to my initial question to you. My skin is thick. I am confident that the epistemic certainty that I rely on for my position as a Christian can withstand all assaults. But we must first get to that discussion in the first place. Please accept my apologies, and let us continue to dialog over whose set of presuppositions, mine or yours, are the right presuppositions to understand the world we live in and all of reality. Your eternal future rests in dialoging these issues, and I pray to the God who is there and who is not silent (the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible), that you continue to wrestle with the big questions that arise as a human living in this world.