"A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is just getting it's shoes on" - Jonathan Swift (Christian, satirist, and author of Gulliver's Travels, 1600's) "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" - Arthur Schopenhauer "If you want to be wrong then follow the masses" - Socrates “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities” -Ayn Rand
Minority and Individuality is False Equivalence Fallacy. Equating minority and individuality can be problematic because it ignores the distinct experiences and challenges faced by minority groups.
What I think is stupid about the question "if evolution is true, how can you trust in the infallibility of human reason" is that it's extremely easy to demonstrate that human reasoning isn't infallible, so that part is just what you'd expect if evolution is true. What science does is try its best to work around the biases that are introduced by the reasoning being done by human brains that evolved for survival instead of truth.
Yes! I always find that this is missing from discussions about this argument. It is not a question of philosophy, it is an empirical fact that human reasoning is inherently flawed. So much psychological research shows this. The question should be, would you expect human reasoning to be systematically flawed on theism, or naturalistic atheism?
I think the main point of the argument is that an account of human beings merely on the standpoint of evolution leads to skepticism of evolution itself since it’s a theory derived by rationality.
I don't think that captures the challenge accurately. The question isn't if human reasoning is infallible, it's if our fallible reasoning is happening within a coherent structure that points at an overarching truth. Science is itself a manifestation of human reason, so we would still have to account for how it maps onto reality. None of this is even really a defeater of evolution because we can say that we've evolved to be rational because the structure of the universe is rational and therefore survival and truth are aligned. But then we have to account for that rational universal structure, which brings us back to God hypotheses.
We know people's reasoning is fallible. For example, we have strong evidence that people's reasoning is subject to cognitive biases. Believing in evolution, and believing the process of evolution selects for survival as opposed to truth, the fact that people's reasoning is fallible makes sense. Believing in God, and believing that God guarantees people's reasoning, the fact that people's reasoning is fallible does not make sense.
Hey there, I wanted to offer a couple thoughts in response to your comment. 1. I’m not aware of any theist who would argue that God guarantees us infallible reasoning. I think God (who I’m defining as a maximally great being) could reasonably create finite beings that are limited in their reasoning faculties just as they are limited in other ways. 2. I don’t think naturalism would solve the problem. I think if theism is true, the possibility that we can reason toward truth (despite fallible faculties) is more likely. If naturalism is true, the possibility that reason may not even exist comes into play, as it would just be a system of guesses/interpretations of chemical reactions (which wouldn’t be necessarily trustworthy because they aren’t necessarily aimed at the production of true belief) to external stimuli. And assuming naturalism, this system of self-admittedly fallible guessing/interpretation is what you would use to arrive at the conclusion that naturalism best explains our logical fallibility. So I don’t think it would solve the whole circular problem. Hopefully I’m not too broad or vague here. Curious to hear your thoughts, have a nice day!
*“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals”* -Christian Minister Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Sure but religion is a rival with secular philosophy. Seems like religion makes people very bigoted and secular philosophy has led to most of the moral progress over the last 200 years.
Read the two core books of the Bible, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and then tell me about how religion is wisom and values. If you don't believe the core books of the Bible are Deuteronomy and Leviticus then give christians power and see what books they turn to when deciding what the laws will be.
@@TrakeM118 You are working too hard. Science has already found that those laws came from other civilizations rather than God. Not only does it disprove a claim in the Bible it also shows how the facts of science will invade even the values of the Bible.
@@TrakeM118you clearly have not spent a minute looking at what those books are viewed as from a Christian standpoint. The laws of the old testament are not universal moral codes . They are not even "laws" how we mean by the word law but judicial wisdom. Jesus when asked about the question of divorce as why Moses allowed it replied by saying "due to hardness of man's heart". The laws are ment to soften the heart of men to a point were Jesus revealed its most optional form
@@valmid5069 Religion gives the illusion of wisdom. A bit like philosophy. How can ‘religion’ be called wisdom when its practitioners invariably persecute one another the minute they attain real power?
As a Christian, it’s thrilling to hear two non Christians explain the presuppositional argument for God’s existence as well as most theologians would, and giving it the respect it deserves. Awesome conversation.
@Davidcurtisdrums Yeah, that must be unusual! When I think of what you call "the presuppositional argument for God’s existence", I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I've only seen Christian apologists and philosophers use this argument, but I've honestly never heard a theologian use it. Who are the people you thought of when you wrote that?
@@Davidcurtisdrums Terrible mistakes like the so-called ‘presuppositional argument’ are the result of too many people indulging in banal word games rather than investigating evidence.
@@timandmonica There’s been variations of it in different theological traditions, but the most notable is Cornelius Van Til. More recently the biggest proponents of it are Jeff Durbin, James White, and the guy who influenced them, Greg Bahnsen. If you want, there’s a debate between Bahnsen and Gordon Stein on RU-vid about God’s existence and the presuppositional argument is used extremely effectively. :)
1:06 I don't think we evolved to "know" 2 + 2 = 4 to begin with. The reason we "know" 2 + 2 = 4 was because it was drilled into you in primary school. We can create a math system where 2 + 2 = 3. I mean a simple one would be take the field of real numbers but redefine addition such that if 3 is used, replace it with 4 and if 4 is used, replace it with 3, and do the same for multiplication, subtraction and division.
Except it does not work, if you use 2 , 4,3 as mere symbols then okey, but their abstract truth of then is true, 2+2 apple is 4 apple, 2+2 mangoes is 4 mangoes.
@@jffrysith4365 Did you know other species are able to add and use a number system? It's just a fact I'm throwing out there. I'm not here to knock any of what you wrote.
@@rithinsiby2653 You missed the point. It is quite easy for a mathematician to make a mathematical ring where 2 + 2 = 3. Just because the mathematical ring you are familiar with gives the answer of 4 does not mean it is in all mathematical rings the same. Also in your example you are using 4 as you learned before and not the internal logic of mathematical systems that have 2 + 2 = 3. By that logic you would still have 3 mangoes. By the logic we teach in school you would have 4. I don't think you thought your example through.
Theists like to say a perfect God is our foundation for reason/truth. Theists also say that they are imperfect. This of course causes a problem because it means their logic is imperfect and subject to error. That includes the belief that a perfect God is the foundation for logic. In a world where physics is the foundation it will clearly produce imperfect beings. We get around this by only calling high confidence items "truth" while still expressing that we could be wrong. This also implies that we cannot know anything with 100% confidence thus breaking the cycle.
There is a fundamental problem with using science to disprove the believe in God. Science is based on a couple assumptions: 1. You can think rational and that the laws of logic are correct. 2. Laws of nature exist. If you remove these assumptions from science, then science collapses. Physics becomes random data, which has no meaning and it becomes impossible to predict anything. It becomes impossible to state that if you press the breaks in your car, the car will decelerate instead on accelerate. The justification for these assumptions has been since the beginning of modern science in the 15/16 century that the world was created by a reasonable and rational God. Roughly 70 years ago the theistic bias in science has been replaced with an atheistic bias in science. Atheist have up to today failed to explain why these assumptions are correct. Some of the have just given up to try to explain them, because you cannot explain how these assumptions are true based on natural processes. Therefore, I have a hard time believing that atheism is correct.
@@Factsmatter2000 science is not the assumption that natural laws exist. The natural laws were created and described through observation and experimentation from the scientific method
@@ExpertContrarian I suggest that you read a history book on the history of science. The reason somebody started to look for laws of nature is because they assume they would exist. This is the reason, why science was developed by Christians in Europe and not in China, despite that the Chinese had a lot of good inventions. The scientific method was original invented to study and understand the Bible. And then it was applied by natural scientist to the natural world because they expected to find laws of nature. The next question is why do laws of nature exist? They don't need to exist. They came into being shortly after the Big Bang. And theoretically there should be chaos and not order through laws of nature.
I’m gonna answer a majority of the questions right now, understand this. The brain doesn’t dictate reality, it sees the connections of potentials. All options are on the table but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to just do whatever but it kinda is. Nature freely shares, humans are a reflection of this but when we share dimensions like seeing then we end up respecting our own experiences with the crossed dimensions rather than each other and end up denying things. One above all so to speak but really we are never one always connected to the infinite so we are free to all. We can share with ourselves, all the potentials by seeing or just by living. Reflections help guide us but the chemicals and such help as well. A crossing of dimensions shares the measurements. Like a hand touching a bed and the reflection is the relatives. I hope that’s understandable but those potentials were always there just unseen or inexperienced. We reflect the dimensions or measurements in the brain where the space is relative matter and can cross them. If we dictate or search then it’s like finding one path by hanging onto something and can blind us but if we share then we see the web of relatives and it’s life. Language is beautiful because it shares to help align each other to see but after one understands enough then the language is like always saying the same things so you start to understand others without so many words. That’s like when a society is so smart they only say one thing lmao but we get lost in the assumptions and try to tell what is or isn’t. That’s why inventors dream of breakthroughs, the brain is sharing the dimensions freely from the outside dictation and more like waves crashing and sharing. So some questions about like god and infinity and what to believe in, well believe in yourself and understand others, believe in the connection to all your potentials and others have the same and respect them. The answers are staring us in the face but we aren’t reflecting honestly until something knocks us into alignment or reflection or something. I’m a visual talker so I’m seeing a lot of what I’m saying so i am sorry if it doesn’t make sense.
I can't even begin to entertain the jumping off point for all this. There is a massive difference between "acting as if" and "believing". The phrase "there is no such thing as an unloaded gun", is false and useful at the same time. However, nobody "believes" that all guns are loaded at all times, but they might "act as if" all guns are loaded at all times, simply to be safer when handling guns.
And just a note, whenever somebody says “God” the weak link in this discussion is that that always comes from man, it never comes from a God. there is never godly wisdom, it is always men’s Wisdom dressed up as gods. Now the day either of these two men bring a God onto the show then it won’t be hearsay, from a man.
“HERMES: Have you, Socrates, never mocked anyone? ¶ SOCRATES: [with dignity] If, on occasion, I make fun of someone, it is because I hope he will help me to seek a truth that neither he nor I yet knows. I do not mock from on high, as you do. I want only to goad my fellow mortal into helping me look beyond that which is easy to see. ¶ HERMES: But what in the world is easy to see? What things are the easiest to see, Socrates? ¶ SOCRATES: [Shrugs.] Those that are before our eyes. ¶ HERMES: And what is before your eyes at this moment? ¶ SOCRATES: You are. ¶ HERMES: Are you sure? ¶ SOCRATES: Are you going to start asking me how I can be sure of whatever I say? And then, whatever reason I give, are you going to ask how I can be sure of that? ¶ HERMES: No. Do you think I have come here to play hackneyed debating tricks? ¶ SOCRATES: Very well: obviously I can’t be sure of anything. But I don’t want to be. I can think of nothing more boring-no offence meant, wise Apollo-than to attain the state of being perfectly secure in one’s beliefs, which some people seem to yearn for. I see no use for it-other than to provide a semblance of an argument when one doesn’t have a real one. Fortunately that mental state has nothing to do with what I do yearn for, which is to discover the truth of how the world is, and why-and, even more, of how it should be. ¶ HERMES: Congratulations, Socrates, on your epistemological wisdom. The knowledge that you seek-objective knowledge-is hard to come by, but attainable. That mental state that you do not seek-justified belief-is sought by many people, especially priests and philosophers. But, in truth, beliefs cannot be justified, except in relation to other beliefs, and even then only fallibly. So the quest for their justification can lead only to an infinite regress-each step of which would itself be subject to error. ¶ SOCRATES: Again, I know this. ¶ HERMES: Indeed. And, as you have rightly remarked, it doesn’t count as a ‘revelation’ if I tell you what you already know. Yet-notice that that remark is precisely what people who seek justified belief do not agree with. ¶ SOCRATES: What? I’m sorry, but that was too convoluted a comment for my allegedly wise mind to comprehend. Please explain what I am to notice about those people who seek ‘justified belief’. ¶ HERMES: Merely this. Suppose they just happen to be aware of the explanation of something. You and I would say that they know it. But to them, no matter how good an explanation it is, and no matter how true and important and useful it may be, they still do not consider it to be knowledge. It is only if a god then comes along and reassures them that it is true (or if they imagine such a god or other authority) that they count it as knowledge. So, to them it does count as a revelation if the authority tells them what they are already fully aware of. ¶ SOCRATES: I see that. And I see that they are foolish, because, for all they know, the ‘authority’ [gestures at HERMES] may be toying with them. Or trying to teach them some important lesson. Or they may be misunderstanding the authority. Or they may be mistaken in their belief that it is an authority- ¶ HERMES: Yes. So the thing they call ‘knowledge’, namely justified belief, is a chimera. It is unattainable to humans except in the form of self-deception; it is unnecessary for any good purpose; and it is undesired by the wisest among mortals. ¶ - David Deutsch, _The Beginning of Infinity_ (Ch.10: A Dream of Socrates)
"The knowledge that you seek-objective knowledge-is hard to come by, but attainable." Hehe. Said Hermes, the Trickster. And didnt explain how is an objective knowledge attainable to our subjective minds.
@@alena-qu9vj Hermes Psychopompos is also a psychopomp in Greek mythology, a "soul guide" that escorts the souls of the deceased to the afterlife. The dialog could be interpreted as an elaborate "you'll see it when you get there" by Hermes.
@@alena-qu9vj , “Appearances are deceptive. Yet we have a great deal of knowledge about the vast and unfamiliar reality that causes them, and of the elegant, universal laws that govern that reality. This knowledge consists of explanations: assertions about what is out there beyond the appearances, and how it behaves. For most of the history of our species, we had almost no success in creating such knowledge. Where does it come from? Empiricism said that we derive it from sensory experience. This is false. The real source of our theories is conjecture, and the real source of our knowledge is conjecture alternating with criticism. We create theories by rearranging, combining, altering and adding to existing ideas with the intention of improving upon them. The role of experiment and observation is to choose between existing theories, not to be the source of new ones. We interpret experiences through explanatory theories, but true explanations are not obvious. Fallibilism entails not looking to authorities but instead acknowledging that we may always be mistaken, and trying to correct errors. We do so by seeking good explanations-explanations that are hard to vary in the sense that changing the details would ruin the explanation. This, not experimental testing, was the decisive factor in the scientific revolution, and also in the unique, rapid, sustained progress in other fields that have participated in the Enlightenment. That was a rebellion against authority which, unlike most such rebellions, tried not to seek authoritative justifications for theories, but instead set up a tradition of criticism. Some of the resulting ideas have enormous reach: they explain more than what they were originally designed to. The reach of an explanation is an intrinsic attribute of it, not an assumption that we make about it as empiricism and inductivism claim.” - David Deutsch, _The Beginning of Infinity_ (summary of Ch.1: The Reach of Explanations)
@@JerehmiaBoaz Hermes migt be a Psychopompos, but he is a Trickster and double-faced lier above all, manipulating words masterfully to create his own reality. Never believe anything he wants you to believe.
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy I am sorry I am not able to work my way throuhg your long not organized post, partly because my bad English too. But anyway, all our knowledge here is and only can be subjective, because perceived and interpreted by subjects. No amount or sum of subjective opinions makes up for some objective knowledge. There is always some fragile consensus conforming to the and changing with the actual time and power. Objectivity is not of this material world.
The problem with this approach is the privileging of philosophy and the brain over the brute stuff of the universe. How brains process things does not affect the actuality of the things. The effectiveness of human brains (and sense independent technologies) in rationally accounting for the things with which it comes into contact is the determining factor. You guys are in danger of smuggling phenomenology into the discussion by not adequately addressing the dialectical relationship of materialism/naturalism and analytic rigor. It isn't the status of minds, or thoughts that comes into question, but the methodological accuracy of the approaches humans take to analyze the 'ontic' stuff - and this is always subject to the validation of 'do our findings align with the brute facts?' If yes - we have a preliminary truth. If no - go back, try again. The difficulty in philosophy seems less amenable to resolution than that of scientific analysis. So, maybe, fix the philosophy, because it appears... (methodologically) confused.
But you can't justify reason under a belief in god either, because you would need to prove first that he exists. Which you can only do by reasoning, which is something you can only trust if you already know god exists.
No need to prove God for this to work, God is discovered also through revelation so that breaks the problem. Revelation is above our normal faculties it comes to put us in our place. Moreover as a philosophical thought experiment you could just grant his existence, then see everything works and makes sense if he exists, then conclude okay I'll believe in God in that case. Empiricism isn't necessary. Although helpful after revelation.
@@Emperorhirohito19272 Revelation is reliable on a subjective level, that's all that matters for this to work. But even on an objective level God is widely present in revelations, we only differ in our understanding of his intimacy or his person. Which is why Jews, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc all ultimately worship the one God who we understand differently but it is God. For Hindus I'd be more precise as they're not technically monotheistic but their ultimate worship is to one deity.
For something to be ontologicly acknowledged it must be epistemologicly attested. -To recognize the existence of something depends on the ability to conceive or recognize it. For something to be epistemologicly acknowledged it must be ontologicly attested. -To claim knowledge of something, that thing must have some form of existence, whether material, conceptual, abstract, or hypothetical. You perceive something by means of perception. The validity of perceiving and the validity of perception cannot be ascertained without each other. You cannot perceive without perception, but what is perception without the act of perceiving. Ontology and epistemology are two sides of the same coin.
Yeah, some folks can't STAND other folks believing a lie I guess. But heck, if my mechanic can get my car to run for a decent price, I could care less if he believes in vampires or a flat earth.
@@theboombody Except when said mechanic gets on the school board and advocates teaching flat earth in our public schools as science, then I start caring.
@@theboombody Think about how, for hundreds of years, the Ptolemaic model of the universe was useful for calculating complex things like the position of planets, eclipses or calendars far into the future, yet ultimately wrong. Conversely, what if you mechanic's understanding of cars is extremely flawed, but just right enough to get your car to run nicely for a couple of days just to explode later with you inside? Truth is a very serious question and philosophers are right to nerd out on it.
@@gre8Sure but my point is that we can’t ever seem to know if we know something or merely believe it. From the inside a justified belief that happens to be true and one that happens to be false are identical until somebody with more data tells us otherwise.
The thing is "truth" is always going to be the case regardless of whether there's a mind to discover the truth. Ultimately it doesn't matter if our brains are developed around "seeking truth" or not. We make observations and try to discern the nature of the world and the universe as a whole based on those observations. Even if we can't trust human intellect, it's literally all we have, whether it can fully understand the truths of the universe or not.
No, human intellect is by far not all we have, its even not making us human - as the transfering of this intellect into the AI proves. Its our emotions what distinguishes us from a mechanical robot, and - as neuroscience proved long ago - those emotions are superior to our intellect - meaning its the very emotions which controll our brain without the brain being able to reflect it.
@@alena-qu9vj Emotions are irrelevant to seeking truth though. Edit: Emotions are often irrational, so they're not sufficient for the justification of truth claims.
@@Hardcrafter2807 Emotions are often irrational. Which is one of the reasons, why our reasoning is often wrong because it is influenced by our emotions. The other reason is that we experience our world through our brains. Everything we experience is created by our brain. Our observations are created and interpreted by our brains. If our brains are not created/designed to work rational, then you can not trust the results and experiences your brain creates. Does that mean that our brains are designed/created. Not necessarily. It just means that if our brains come about random processes than you cannot trust anything your brain produces to be true.
If we boil water to make tea, we also get steam. If we accept that we have evolved to select for survivability and not truth, can't observance of truth be something that is a by product of that, an epiphenomenal occurrence. A species can observe falling from the window of a tall building kills them and so evolve to have a healthy fear of heights, but if it evolve observing rainbows in skies after a rainfall, that has no immediate bearing on their survival but it's still something that's noticed.
And what exactly is truth in a construct VR world made by random chance over time, by VR I mean humans and rocks are mere collections of energy just instantiated a certain way thus it’s a VR world in the sense that everything is just energy rearranged for you to traverse in this universe
@@rahilrahman266 @rahilrahman266 not saying I actually believe that personally, just asking the question and playing the socratic game. And besides my point is more really that I'm rejecting that saying we evolved to adapt to for survivability means we did so at the expense of truth, trying to point out that not everything we observe is necessarily borne from it being useful to survival and that alone. Trying to point out that it's silly to think that evolving solely to adapt for survivability is silly. We boil the kettle solely to make tea, but we get steam, so is the steam real when we orientated ourselves around the goal of making tea?
that is an important observation but it doesn't change the outcome of the discussion. It's basically similar to what the guest said about Hew Price's(?) proposition: that you define truth in a more modest way, related to the human experience rather than in terms of Absolute. What the two point out is that even in the case that we all regard something as being true (like the examples you gave) doesn't make it true in an absolute sense, rather it says that: it is so strongly reinforced by evolution that we regard is as selfevident. I like the nuance you bring in that if there is no bias there is no reason to be untruthful. But the problem i see with it, is that if we multiply the selection of 'truth' over 100ts and 100ts of generations there is likely to always be a bias about anything.
@Cian097 if you want to eliminate the elimination of truth by traditional understanding of evolution and want to imply that truth can be a byproduct of evolution, you have meet your logics demand or if you want to convince us then answer our logics demand, which is which feature of evolution demands our being able to deduce true objective reality!
how do you know reliable and consistent results make something trust worthy? You are employing reason to make that leap. That is a logical fallacy. That's the exact problem. Reason must be presupposed as true for your argument to work.
@@faithalonesaves "How do you know reliable and consistent results make something trust worthy?" What else would make something trust worthy? We first need to agree what it means for something to be 'true' before this conversation can even be had.
@@Manzikirt1 Aristotle says truth is saying about what is, that it is, and saying about what is not, that it is not. You can not possibly have epistemic certainty that induction is reliable. The Black Swan Theory is always a possibility.
I’ve never seen Jay have a productive conversation, ever. The kind of mutually respectful inquiry Alex and his interlocutor are having here is beyond him.
@@Detson404Jay’s open debates on his livestream can be a train wreck. In moderated debates like his against Dillahunty, he’s much more professional & effective.
@@no3339call it whatever you want. Justified, non justified.... It works and it's the only worldview that provides good explanation for the reality we live in. I'd rather hold to an unjustified worldview that is honest and that works rather than in one that doesn't have any explanatory power and it's based on a fictional character, but it's justified using sophistry
@no3339 "a strict metaphysical sense " ? This is the kind of nonsense philosophy produces. All worldview claim knowledge, naturalism is the only one that can demonstrate anything
Going through the solutions to the problem of induction in epistemology, I cannot escape the feeling that the arguments or proofs were arguments for a God of a different sort. Some had very similar structures and even the term sinning epistimologically seems to take on a strange religious fervor. "If absolute truth belongs to anyone in the world, it certainly does not belong to the man or party that claims to possess it." - Albert Camus
I'm not really getting this one. You don't just "believe that 2+2=4", it is constantly demonstrated to you throughout your daily life. How could a belief that "2+2=5" persist if you constantly observed that you are left with four things when two groups of two came together? As far as the evolution example, we believe in evolution because it is consistent with the way that we experience life. We know that everything eventually dies, and only living things can reproduce to pass on their traits to offspring. Even if you believe that evolution is a process that favors "survival" over "truth", isn't the ability to evaluate how the world works - living, dying, having babies to pass on traits, etc. - consistent with survival? If an animal was so stupid that all of their predictions about how the world was supposed to work turned out to be wrong, wouldn't that animal have a hard time surviving?
I agree with you. Having a failable reasoning doesn't matter in pure calculus methodology. Facts don't care with what we would like, they certainly don't care about our feelings. Facts are just that, facts. They are observable. If I can observe that jumping from a ten story building is dangerous, having a failable reasoning or a correct reasoning doesn't matter, I just won't take that chance. I obviously am writing this comment instead of sleeping so if it doesn't make sense, its perfectly normal.
We can: purpose and survival. Survival is more akin to what is useful to last longer. Purpose is akin to asking questions and narrating ourselves into more adaptive stories. Evolution can only hold on to so much information, that culture and education can suplement. In other words, knowledge and ideas. Knowledge and ideas, follow similar mechanics as evolutions: if it lasts and it reproduces, then it stays. Which might also work for bad ideas, they might reproduce faster and last longer, but might be detrimental, like viruses that negatively impacts us.
The atheist is truly in a vicious circle, the fact that he recognises that his reasoning is not evolved to produce or recognise truth but simply survival is itself a truth claim. He is essentially admitting by this that truth can never be attained, which is a vicious circular contradiction. A truth that proclaims its own nonexistence. That’s nonsense
"The atheist is truly in a vicious circle, the fact that he recognises that his reasoning is not evolved to produce or recognise truth but simply survival is itself a truth claim. He is essentially admitting by this that truth can never be attained, which is a vicious circular contradiction. A truth that proclaims its own nonexistence. That’s nonsense" A few things. First, what exactly does God contribute to the soundness of the reasoning of human (and other animal) brains? Is there a difference between 'truth' for a chimpanzee or cat, for example and for a human? Why does an atheist have to recognize that a brain evolved to have aided in survival isn't also able to produce or recognize truth? This question needs be answered by you whether God exists or not. God may exist AND life including sentient life may have also arose naturally from the physical world and evolved into the various life forms we see around us. The natural world might exist eternally right along side of God's eternal existence and God may only involve itself in the spiritual aspect of existence. Second, the atheist might be right. God may not exist. What then? In that case evolved reasoning may be all that we have...all that there is. Atheists NOT believing God exists doesn't change reality. God either doesn't exist or God exists for all and the atheist just doesn't recognize it. But IF God doesn't exist, then your and other theist's reasoning that without God we cannot trust our reasoning is just as reliable/unreliable as any other reasoning, meaning that, in a reverse way, no one would have to listen to your view that we can't trust our reasoning if God doesn't exist... IF God doesn't actually exist. Try to untwist that and convince me that God exists if God doesn't exist. Third, the atheist doesn't have to conclude that truth is absolute..only that there are ways to assess whether reasoning works. And that can be done by comparing notes with others and by using their reasoning in survival situations and concluding that if it aids in survival or keeps one from injury, it may be reliable enough in other cases. Why isn't that good enough? Keep in mind, you're answering this AS IF God doesn't exist because IF God exists, and IF God is needed for reliable reasoning...then God exists for all and everyone's reasoning is equally reliable...or UNreliable per my next paragraph. But the real problem with that view is that if God exists, no one can know absolutely that their reasoning is sound. In fact, we wouldn't be able to even use survival... or any outcome for that matter at all, as a measure of the success of our reasoning since God could alter outcomes. We can't know for certain that God isn't modifying the world around us up to and including modifying our actual reasoning. We can have faith that God isn't surreptitiously affecting human thought for his own mysterious reasons, but they can't know. But we have NO objective basis for concluding our reasoning WITH God existing is reliable. We can have faith...that's it. And if one can have faith that God isn't modifying one's thinking without their knowledge, one can have faith that an evolved brain can produce truth sufficiently for social interaction and a satisfying life. What exactly does God get us regarding sound thinking and reliable reasoning? As I have shown...nothing except by faith.
@@rizdekd3912 that’s a lot but of most of this is just fluff. I am simply making a comment to Alex’s comment which states that the atheist circle is vicious, while the theist’s circle is virtuous. Which is the ironic enough, is the truth. To state that our reasoning is not evolved to produced truth, is in itself a truthful claim derived from the reasoning mechanism which is not evolved to produce truth. Surely, you see this. Its only concern is strictly survivability. If lies are helpful in surviving, then it will pass that on. Reason under the atheist umbrella is simply unreasonable. Hence why it’s a vicious circle. But the theist circle is, as Alex states, virtuous and for this reason. The theist's position abstains from the audacity of that huge negative which denies truth altogether. The Theist need not, and does not, grant these terms. He is not committed to the view that reason is a comparatively recent development moulded by a process of selection which can select only the biologically useful. For him, reason-the reason of God-is older than Nature, and from it the orderliness of Nature, which alone enables us to know her, is derived. For him, the human mind in the act of knowing is illuminated by the Divine eternal and unchanging reason. It is set free, in the measure required, from the huge nexus of non-rational causation; free from this to be determined by the truth known. And the preliminary processes within Nature which led up to this liberation, if there were any, were designed to do so. He always assumes the validity of truth or its existence, he never denies it, like the atheist does. Which is why only the theist is the only person who can do science.
That's not the implication, the implication is simply that we're fallible and biased. We can know true things but we can be wrong about what we believe. That's the case regardless of your belief in deities. To even believe in a god or believe that a god gives you reason, you first have to employ reason, which is obviously fallible.
@@IshmaelPrice the implication of deriving rationality from evolution is that you can only know truth accidentally, because the sole purpose for the existence of your reasoning, as with anything biological, is simply to allow you to survive. Evolution does not care for truth or false holds. Its primary and only tenet is for you to survive. That’s the implication drawn by Alex
@@emmanuelkatele1 That is only the first step. The implication is that the reason which is used to justify evolution is invalidated by the conclusions of evolution and is no longer a convincing basis for the argument.
I have never been homeless, in prison, never lost my way, never needed a God, and never will. But once we add the melodramatic approach and seek attention for rekless mistakes, be that to blame our stupidity and bad choices on others and never taking responsibility for our choices, then finally and oh so conveniently, find a God. Actually it's not a God we search for, it's support and community that all humans need. But when despiration meets change, and we can call it anything we want to, attach any religion here and bam, conveniently call it God. 😂
But even though in evolutionary model there is selection for survivability, survivability depends on having mostly true perception of reality, and being carefull about things that are potentially dangerous, which couses fenomenon of assigning agency to movement behind us making as think that it is dangerous agent and not moving branches in the wind.
@@Randomytname1 Well, not all sensory information is false. Humans sensory information is certainly incomplete (dogs can smell and hear more, but not all the spectrum, dogs don't see as well as people), but the interface that our brain and created by brain mind can create, gives as good enough picture of reality for basic the survival. If the interface would "tell us" that there is a cliff, where there is no cliff, when we are walking, this would be a problem. If the mind creates false impression that there is a predator behind the tree, and I run, it sucks a bit, but it makes me more alert and allows me survive better, when there is a real predator. So if the number of false alarms is balanced, in the end it is a Plus. Now, from the evolutionary point of view, giving us a thinking brain as is does, it gives us massive advantage when it comes to survivability, but there is always a little bit of price. The balance is positive so far, though there is the pollution, global warming, and the arsenal of A and H bombs, and people like Kim, Vlad, Donald, end so on.
Reason evolbed to survive, not to find trueth. This is a miopic mistatement. Truth is nessary for survival. We can learn our congitive biases and compensate for them. There is no paradox or contradiction--only a flawed method of investigation.
As a tool, reason is optimized for survival. Fine. That doesn't preclude me from using it for a task other than survival though. A hammer is not the optimal tool for opening a package, but you can absolutely open a package with a hammer, and you can absolutely use reason to find truth.
@@buglepongmaybe, but enough truths ARE necessary for survival that it's consistent with our reasoning being pretty good, though not perfect, at finding truths.
This sounds so bizarre. Its like asking why do we trust empirical data? Asking why 2+2=4 makes sense is like why does gravity attract masses. You might think that the number and concept 2 is man made, but addition is essentially an operation/interaction between separate instances of like items. Even animals can tell the difference between numbers. They know when to back off if the odds are stacked against them in situations of violence.
Yes, math began with us simply assigning names/symbols to objectively existing amounts of things. I have an objectively existing amount of fingers on one hand, an amount on the other, and an amount in total. And, it doesn't matter if you use base 10, or the Sumerian base 60, it's still the same objectively existing amount. Likewise, it doesn't matter if you measure a weight in pounds, kilos, or stone ... Any which way you do it, it still represents the exact same objectively existing weight of something. Same for objectively existing distance (km vs miles, cm vs feet, etc.), objectively existing temperature (F vs C), objectively existing speed (km/h vs mph), ... Even if our choice of how to measure a thing was somewhat subjective, what we are measuring is objective.
But you’re wrong. 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of consensus among humans based on a language we invented to suit our common observations. These observations can’t possibly be based on pure objectivity because we simply don’t have access to it, and the more we learn about the universe, the more this becomes apparent. You can really think about this scientifically by removing humans from the picture entirely. Say we have a notion that 4 different objects are 2 and 2. But now we remove all humans. What are those objects and what happened to the notion of “different.” It’s all gone. Those objects are now groups of atoms, which are groups of electrons, which have properties like quantum entanglement making the relationships between them quite blurry and maybe the differences not as profound as what human observation granted them. Really all I’m saying is as subjective beings with enough commonality and intelligence to form languages, it’s inevitable that we overestimate what our observations mean, but they really mean something different without us. We bring ourselves to every observation, and even the particular state we’re in to every observation in such a way that there’s no way of knowing the meaning of it without us being involved.
I see this throughout theological arguments, the chicken & egg type problem, here referred to as circularity. Philosophy (which tends to get stuck in thousand-year-old problems) considers all fundamental things as binary. Things exist or don't exist. There is conscious humans and other life which is not. There is non-life then, kaboom, life. Modern science shows that nature isn't concerned with this categorization. Quantum mechanics get hazy about exists/not-exists. Abiogenesis points strongly to a life going from 0 to 1, merging growth of functionality, connectedness and complexity along a continuum. Solms demonstrates that consciousness in mammals varies in degree not quality. Why assume that reason is a binary?
This one is exceptionally silly. We simply don't have a choice. When it comes to understanding the universe we find ourselves in, reason isn't just a tool in the box, it's the entire damned toolbox. Trying to bypass that by saying "that's because of God" requires no response other than TOAST!
I think the punch of the objection is sure we may have no other option than to accept the trustworthiness of our reason if we wish to live in this world but the question is what best ACCOUNTS for the trustworthiness of reason, granted it takes a lot of steps to get to something like God from there even more so something like the Christian God, but I find it hard to account for the trustworthiness of reason apart from some kind of appeal to something transcendental. You could conceivably still be an atheist and believe in some kind of transcendental basis for reason (maybe like a platonist) but I guess at that point a lot of people just choose to take a worldview that’s already been thought out for them (I.e. religion) that does, whether true or false, hypothetically account for the trustworthiness of reason, rather than have to build an entirely new worldview from the ground up.
Your tool for understanding the universe is about as expedient for that task as is hammer for splitting the atom. The problem is not in using the reason, problem is that the said reason is so painfully primitive...
@@alena-qu9vj how do you know that? What’s the more sophisticated tool? How do you know the conclusions you come to using that tool are true without applying reason?
Yes! I think this discussion shows that something like the pragmatic view of truth is the best way to understand the meaning of the word 'true' Following AJ Ayer/wittgenstein - to imagine that there is some 'higher' or 'metaphysical' sense in which statements can be true beyond correlating to sense experience or being tautological might just be philosophical confusion which, when cleared up results in a sense of relief 😅
Have you not heard that our sense experience doesn 't correlate with the reality as it really is? Its proven above any doubts that our senses are lying. So of course you may call your sense experience "truth" if you wish, you are free to give the word any meaning that pleases you. The reality doesn't care how you call it anyway.
Interesting they have a photo of CS Lewis but never actually discuss him or what he said. But I can’t help but think of this quote of CS Lewis they may be onto: “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
CS Lewis wasn't much of a thinker. There's an obvious flaw in his logic. If the brain is just material and its thoughts are flawed as he claims then believing in God could be the result of flawed thinking and he wouldn't know...because by his own admission his thoughts would be flawed. Just the very idea that this is possible hamstrings him because it could be the case and he'd have no way of knowing.
@@nitsujism lol, apparently you didn’t watch this video. Because the argument is made for both sides of theist and materialist but at least the theist has a reason for his circular logic where the materialist does not. To say CS Lewis isn’t much of a thinker is hilarious because Alex continually brings up Lewis’s arguments and has admiration for him. To think Lewis died over 60 years ago but his arguments still give atheists a wrinkle to argue against and never resolve is proof he as “much of a thinker”. But maybe you’re smarter than Alex and Lewis. So by all means, what’s your real name so we can look up your books to read them and see how much a thinker you truly are?
Weird, this is something I've been thinking about a lot myself lately, good timing on the video I guess I haven't seen the full video, but I'm gonna pose the challenge to logic that's I've been thinking about, I imagine it'll be covered but, For any logical proposition, inherent as one of it's premesis, is the idea that logic can be used to derive truth. But that becomes circular when your conclusion is that logic can be used to derive truth, the conclusion is one of the premesis, I don't think it's possible to justify this.
I appreciate the honesty 👏. I would like to have seen them talk about why we should trust our reasoning ability if we believe we don’t have any control over our own thoughts.
@@caveman-cp9tq I didn’t claim you said reason justifies reason. Your assessment of the byproducts of reason presupposes transcendental categories like reason/logic. That’s why it’s circular. You’re misunderstanding what justification means in a metaphysical sense
@@no3339 I’m certainly not presupposing anything of the sort. You ask me why I use “reason” I tell you the simple answer: because it consistently has worked in the past and so we collectively have evolved and as an individual I have formed habits of thinking and so I will continue to think in this way so long as it works. It’s not that complicated. It’s very true that we cannot know anything for certain, and humans reason is definitely limited and flawed, but anyone who suddenly decides to stop using reason altogether will die out, leaving behind those who do cling to reason. More generally, if you ask why anyone does anything (going from the specific question of why we trust reason or use rationality/logic in our assessment and actions), then the answer will always be that we do whatever we feel like doing. It is ingrained within us to use reason, we can’t help but to do it. I don’t have to “justify” why I do it (whatever that means), I will simply continue to do it as long as it works. The justification is PRACTICAL, not abstract and purely philosophical. Without human emotions and the interactivity between the mind and real world, there is no “justification” for doing anything at all.
@@caveman-cp9tq I didn’t ask you you use reason LOL I asked for your epistemological justification of reason/logic insofar as it belongs to the transcendental categories.
Because they’re not incoherent, and because theists can’t provide any evidence. Sorry you’re afraid of death and want magic to exist, it would be awesome to live forever but it doesn’t seem to be in the cards.
Our reason has in fact evolved for survivability, not for truth; but, for most of time, the most useful believe is the true believe, though it is not always. That's why its important to base your philosophy on empirical evidence as much as possible, and avoid too much metaphisical reasoning; because, as hume said, our weak reason has narrow limits. And i think the distinction between self-underminig versus self-reinforcing is not necessarily a bad thing for naturalists. A self undermining epistemology could rely much more on its rigorous selection of truths than a self-reinforcing epistemology like grounding our reason in God.
Didn't you use the same cognitive faculties in question to come to the conclusion that the most useful belief is a true belief Besides evolution doesn't entail the most optimal outcome at all times
@@kiroshakir7935 we can know that a great amount of our believes (the most useful believes for evolution) are true believes through empirical evidence, which is not dependent on our reason. Einstein used much reasoning to come to his theory of relativity, but in the end we have empirical evidence that shows his reasoning (or an important part of it) was correct. We have, for example, a photo(!) of a black hole, we know clocks change their measurement depending on their velocity and gravitational field, etc.
Just as the other guy said; since you claim reason isn't meant to discern truth, but instead utility, by your own logic, your whole statement isn't actually true nor the fact of reality, but rather useful to your own aims and goals. What you said undermines the truth of itself, whereas the alternative reinforces the truth of itself.
@@gabrielmaximianobielkael3115 "We can know that a great amount of our beliefs are true beliefs through empirical evidence, which is not dependent on our reason." No. Beliefs based on empirical evidence aren't independent from abstract reasoning. For example: "Metal expands when it's heated." Is empirical observation enough for us to form our belief in this proposition? Absolutely not. You can't accept such propositions as true without generalizing from one case to all.(inductive reasoning)You also need your cognitive faculties to be able to even recognize metal itself for the experiment to take place.
Truth is entirely abstract and subjective. There is no big T truth that can satisfy anything from one observer/thinker to another. After hearing such during an early philosophy class I realized it contradicts itself if the truth is that there is no objective truth. It becomes that very circularness we would prefer to avoid.
Truth, maybe, is simply dependent on what the collective agrees upon and it still doesn't represent objective reality other than to say it's more of an endless circle that continues to start and end at the same point.
I don't understand, does the problem change if we change the problem from "why can we trust reason if we're atheist" to "why can't we trust reason if we're religious"? Like it's not like reason is a god-instructed practice that was divined by him. Regardless of whether a god exists (unless the god is completely unknown and did divine reason on a select few people), reason is fallible. Even worse, it's well known the reason is quite fallible, first off, we notice we have to make an assumption to even start (that is that the first axiom is true.) and generally a single axiom isn't a very powerful system (cannot define even addition) So we have to assume even more axioms are true. Next we construct a system of 9 axioms (ZFC) that we can prove is not simultaneously consistent and complete (Godel because ZFC is powerful enough to define addition). We know it's not complete, which is better for reason (because we can't prove continuum hypothesis), however we also can prove that it's unprovable that it's consistent if it's consistent. So we'll never know if ZFC is consistent. The worst part is that this is true in any logic system (capable of addition). So my point is we can definitely not "trust" reason to be guaranteed effective, so you may ask, why do we trust reason? Because we don't need a 100% guarantee it's correct. What we need is it to be correct everytime we test it. So far, we've yet to find an inconsistency in ZFC. That's kinda crazy if it's inconsistent. We just somehow missed wherever the inconsistency lies. Also, every model we make of the world using it just so happens to work (or when the model is taken to an expert, there's a reason why it fails.) I mean, engineers (the people building complex tools over the world) usually use a known incorrect model (estimates) to make the numbers easier to use. It doesn't need to be perfect, just reasonably accurate.
Yes, evolution selects traits beneficial for survivability and not truth per se, but obviously being able to discern what is true about the world (i.e. whether there’s a predator in the bush, the fire is hot, or that plant is poisonous) is going to be the most essential part of being able to survive… so in that sense evolution absolutely does select for rationality and truth knowing.
False positives and a negativity bias are way more useful for survival than truths. "There might be a predator in this bush, let me find out". "There is always a predator in this bush, regardless of what evidence tells me".
You're only speaking in extreme generalities. It is generally the case that evolution would select for Truth sensitivity, but it is not always the case. Since it is not always the case, and we cannot know of all the ways that evolution did not select for Truth sensitivity, then we cannot fully trust our own rationality. Ex. We're biologically biased towards certain things like group think, or seeing colors. Useful things that aren't helping for knowing what is true
evolution doesnt select for survival per se, but breeding before death. you only have to be given specifically sufficient true information, not generally true information.
Evolution is perfectly fine with “True enough” instead of “Absolutely true”-our own eyes abscribe to this. Our brains literally cast what is essentially an illusion to account for the things that we don’t see when we blink. We can’t even see the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only the “visible light spectrum (380 to 700 nanometers frequency)” We are way more limited than we think, and we are reliant more on faith than you’d like to believe.
Evolution isnt philosophy. You can philosophy yourself in all kinds of things, but Theories like Evolution need evidence. YOu can test it. Those tests arent based on your epistemology. Many people with many epistemologies have tested it. So its not circular. Philosophers give reasons why they are right. Scientists look for facts that disprove them. Thats different. Thats like saying a debate bro is just as good as an expert in their field with actual evidence.
Experts in their fields with actual evidence - hehe. You mean experts of today or 100 - 50 - 5 years back? Experts payed by their donnors to come with a suitable expertize? Actual evidence being fighted and rejected by other experts in their field? How is it possible that the brain of the matrialists just turns into a stone of awe at hearing the magical word "science" and cannot function further?
The same reasoning faculties and very base asumptioms they said you couldn't trust also affects the scientific method as a truth seeking method. It all stems from the same cognition.
Please give an example of the reliability of the rules of logic in matters of emotions. While emotions are the real force behind everything in this (unlogical) world.
@@rahilrahman266Show me something that is both an apple and not an apple at the same time. Show me a number that is bigger than 5 but smaller than 2. Show me a prime number with 6 divisors. If you can do that, I'll rethink my whole "laws of logic are reliable" belief and convert to your "my perfectly moral imaginary friend who is OK with genocide is the source of truth" belief.
@@rahilrahman266They're reliable in the same way that the sunrise is. Nobody stays up at night worrying that the sun won't rise, just as nobody spends a lot of time dreading the possibility that things will suddenly stop being identical to themselves.
I was homeless, did drugs, went into prison, where I got to know God, te changed my life. Now I have a home, a Wife and a lovely daughter (Jessica), and a stream of income that gets me $44, 000 Every month. Plus a new identity - a child of God. Hallelujah!!!
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery. Glory to God.shalom.
Most mutations are either benign or negative. So we have many traits that are neither helping nor hurting our survival odds. So saying traits that we have must serve survival is not true.
Nah.... No rational mind gets convinced by TAG. TAG is where apologists go to "die", meaning when they finally realise their favourite religion has zero good evidence, they retreat to sophistry and drop the need for evidence all together. No wonder TAG is very popular online with young uneducated Christians who all sound the same when you talk to them. They are all hyper confident and smug, until you ask them to justify the first premise of TAG. They all run faster than roadrunners.
@@myself2noone Not at all, plenty find it convincing because it’s true. All arguments ultimately boil down to circularity, so if you predicate everything you believe off presuppositions of “logic”, yet justify it circularly, you violate your first presupposition in justifying it. Not to mention the absolute absurdity of the overwhelming majority of the materialist doctrine. The only thing you have going for your worldview is that it’s been turned into propaganda in public schooling, basically forcing the Darwinist, materialist worldview on youth who can’t yet critically think (I was one of them), simply because convincing a society they are equal to animals with no objective morals or purpose makes them far easier to control.
Animals are goal oriented creatures. Survivability is a goal. To reach a goal, you must take a path. More paths to survivability are also paths to truth than paths to survivability that are not paths to truth. This means that more often than not, what is true also makes you survive. So more often than not, people believe true things. Sometimes we don’t.
@piage84 God is the greatest conceivable being and therfore it follows that since being truthful is a great making property ,God will posses it. You are not rational simply because you say so being a human by definition you are not a purely rational creature
So all I need to do, to improve my justification for confidence in my own reasoning faculties ... is to accept SpongeBob as my Eternal Hall Monitor and then imagine him writing me a permission slip to walk the halls of reason?
There may be a rough overlap of survivability to what we define as truth. Obviously not a 1 to 1 match but broadly speaking, our perception of truth is what lasts and what is consistent over time. Almost in line with Jordan Peterson's approach, if something lasts, persists, or recurrs over and over again in a consistent pattern throughout time in myth, or in nature, there may be some reason to suggest that in that pattern is truth of one form or another. Lies or at least falsehoods overtime are revealed to be so whether via nature self correcting, philosophical thought clarifying or scientific advancements revealing new levels of insight. Ultimately, I don't even know if completely objective truth exists even at the physical level, but as flawed human beings, all we have is our limited human capacities to aim for some type of consistent standard based on the best that we can put together using the tools we have available.
Objective truth exists as a narrative like math's An objective truth for example that matters is how does she that grew you control if you are a pack animal or not ? Which means, there is a pinpoint exact replicated method used throughout all life that determines if you are a pack animal or not And knowing what that exact method was, is knowing an objective truth a very dangerous one at that
@@RepentAndBelieveMedia Knowledge about what? How I acquire the knowledge to safely cross a road is different to how I acquire knowledge about where I left my car keys.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic Yes, God becomes the prcondition for you to even have reason. Thus we are created relying on God for reason as God is the source of reason, then deny Him who is the ground of reason, which leads to absurdities that follow with long enough time.
@TheHuxleyAgnostic Consider what was stated in the video. But the answer is that empirical senses may perhaps be something you know, yet you cannot justify truth and knowledge through your senses because your brain, being only rocks clashing into one another, cannot produce reason, true, knowledge, and beauty. (Note also the folly of the claim and demands reductio-ad-absurdum. If truth came from senses then the statement wouldn't be true because the statement does not come from our senses) Because the world is silent on these things, so you must be. But God is not silent. The reason you can reason and understand truth and reality is because there is a God. These guys miss the point of the Theist. They believe we're saying "a god." and therefore cannot know "which god." But God has revealed Himself in His Word - the Bible, revealing that he is in Himself, truth, power, timeless spaceless, immaterial, etc. All things come from Him. In summary, to attempt to disprove the Bible is to use the content of the Bible. That is the ultimate proof of God's existence philosophically. I will be debating an atheist today on this if you are interested.
I don’t think this argument works if we’re talking about reason, since it’s reasonable to think that having a reliable way to obtain truths is an evolutionary advantage and, therefore, could have developed in us purely through natural selection. In my opinion, the problem isn’t whether we can trust our reason but whether we can trust our moral intuitions. Our moral intuitions evolved as an adaptation to social life; they are simply instincts that regulate our behavior. And if this is true, then our moral intuitions don’t have to be connected to true moral values. We intuitively believe that killing or stealing is wrong, not because it actually is, but because it’s beneficial for society to instinctively think that way. Imagine for a moment that vegans are correct and that consuming animal-derived foods is immoral; even if this is true, our moral intuitions might tell us that consuming animals is justified for some reason, since this idea represents an evolutionary advantage over the idea that animal consumption is wrong. However, this doesn’t mean we can’t use reason to arrive at true moral values through philosophical reflection. We may instinctively assume that killing is wrong, and this intuition might not be based on any true moral value, but we can use philosophy to demonstrate that killing is wrong regardless of our intuitions.
*Regarding Intellect or Reasoning* 1- We trust our Reasoning because we don't have a choice 2- We can only trust our Reasoning to the extent of their accuracy to discern the world around us, a healthy brain can reason better the world around us than an unhealthy brain 3- A mentally ill person's (depending on the degree of the mental illness) reasoning is not capable of distinguishing his perceived "reality" as not the true world around us, mentally ill people cannot choose what is real and false to them *Regarding Evolution and Logic* 1- Human Beings are social animals, and social animal evolution favors cohesiveness and group adherence *IF* believing 2 + 2 = 5 is beneficial to our survival within our group (such as believing in God/s) then those who believe 2 + 2 = 4 will die out because the group would not allow their existence 2- Believing in 2 + 2 = 5 would continue as long as its overall benefit is a net positive for the group as a whole and perceived as such *Regarding Evolution Natural Selection, Survivability, and Truth* 1- Natural Selection does Select for Truth 2- A monkey in the Savanah of Africa shares its World/Reality/Objective Truth with other animals and predators, when this monkey seeks food, he must be able to, to the best of his abilities; reason how and where to get food, and should this monkey failed to see the Lion or Snake (Truth) in the grass, he would be the food, so it is the monkey with the best faculties to discern the Predator in the grass the one whose genes get to be pass down generation after generation
Regarding Intellect or Reasoning If you are right, then we cannot trust anything to be true. Which means you cannot claim that atheism is true based on reason, because you cannot prove that your reasoning is based is connected to reality in any way. Regarding Evolution and Logic Being and engineer and a scientist I don’t think you are right. You can change the name of 4 to 5. You could also call it Vier, which is the German word for four. This is just semantics. The question is if you have 2 rocks sitting in front of you, independent if you call 2 two or zwei (German) or deux (French) are there two or three rock in front of you? Because changing names does not change reality. Regarding Evolution Natural Selection, Survivability, and Truth Evolution does not select for truth. Evolution selects based on the survival of the fittest. If you think that mushrooms are cursed by an evil magician and therefor you don’t eat them, then you survive and pass on your genes. If we don’t eat the mushrooms because we know they are poisonous then we don’t eat them and we survive and pass on our genes. Truth is irrelevant for survival. Important is what works.
@@Factsmatter2000 Regarding Intellect or Reasoning 1- We don't choose to trust our reasoning, that's my point, we don't have a choice any more than a person born completely blind can simply choose to see the colors of the rainbow any day and then choose to become completely blind again 2- Atheism is true to the extent of what being an atheist means to each individual atheist, and personally to me; it's just my personal opinion on the question of whether or not a God and/or Gods exist, I do not believe such things exists; therefore; I am an Atheist, that is True, hence; Atheism (regarding in my opinion of "God/s") is True Regarding Evolution and Logic 1- *I didn't say anything about changing reality* 2- Think of Islam as an example If I were born in an Islamic country, what would facilitate my continued existence, accept Islamic Law and the claim of the so-called Prophet of Islam, which in many Islamic countries is in fact part of the Law, or Deny Islamic Law? *I am Not saying* that 2+2=5 is true because I ( or society) say so or that we change reality, what I'm saying is that a belief (even if a reasonable logical belief) will only be allowed within a social group as long as such belief is viewed as a net positive, and any person who does not conform to the group is cast out from the group or worse, Islamic societies are very much an example of this 3- Modern Western Culture is very different in this regard to Islamic Culture,... About 500 years' worth of differences, so Modern Western Culture holds to a completely different set of socially and culturally acceptable standards, and views, this of course varies amongst Western Cultures An example is the acceptability of Trans and Gay people and/or opinions and views towards them Another example is the view and acceptability of Nazis and Nazi ideology Regarding Evolution Natural Selection, Survivability, and Truth 1- In what sense survival of the fittest is Truth? 2- Are the Mushrooms poison or not? Is it the Reality of the Mushrooms itself that they are Poisonous Mushrooms or Not? 3- There are plenty of animals that have adapted to eat and resist venom and poisonous mushrooms because *Adaptation* (which Survival of the Fittest is about) can only be Real(Truth) if the surrounding environment, including poisonous mushrooms; is in fact Truth
@@XDRONIN Okay, so if I understand you correctly, you define true as what you think is true. So that means that if somebody else thinks something else that is true for him/her. So, in short this means there is no real truth and that means there is also no reality, because if you think that earth is flat, the for you this is true and the earth is flat. You sound like you believe that if you think something is true then this means that reality does adopt to it. Your belief is not connected to any evidence or physical reality. Please correct me if I misunderstand you.
@@Factsmatter2000 Never said such a thing, it amazes me that's what you get from what I wrote or either didn't even bother to read properly at all, so-called "factsmatter", what a bad joke
@@XDRONIN That is what it sounded what you wrote. So I get that you accept that there is a reality, which is not depended from what you or I believe to be true, but there is actual truth and reality? And yes I read exactly what you stated.
What is ‘Truth’.? We may never know. However we do know pragmatically what works, what allows us to do things, what explains the world around us. Truth is the word we use for the later (pragmatic), now there are those who want to say we need to know absolute truth? Why??
This is where one sees the complete failure of philosophy when it comes to understanding the world. Evolution does not select for ‘beliefs’. It selects for structures and behaviours. The brain does not come pre-loaded with ‘beliefs’, true or false. The brain is designed to deal with the actual environment and to process the information it receives from the world. The argument of Plantings and others is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. This is pretty typical of philosophy, which is a discipline that elevates its misconceptions about data into arguments.
@@mark69985 Philosophy in general is just a collection of arguments, without even an agreed methodology or set of data. Philosophers can and do believe any amount of nonsense. No doubt some philosophers do valuable work, but that work now consists in wading through the conceptual rubbish (e.g ‘idealism) and learning the arcane jargon in order to refute arguments that were based on factual misconceptions in the first place.
You can’t escape philosophy. All you can do is be ignorant of your own philosophical assumptions. The scientific method itself is just a specific kind of epistemic method.
@@Detson404 No. ‘Philosophy’ is an academic discipline, with its own jargon. All conceptual analysis and discussion is not ‘Philosophy’ in the sense I mean.
We evolved to “believe” 2+2=4? What follows from that? What do we evolve to knowing 2+2=4? Rationalism is partially reinforced by consciousness, but mostly composed of the tension between belief and opposite belief(skepticism). As an opposing belief atheism can use “reason claims” to support its skeptical view. As an opponent of “religious belief” atheism is not in opposition to ALL belief. Indeed their use of reason claims must incorporate belief. As a proponent of materialism however atheists and others are on shoddy ground. On grounds in opposition to ALL belief. Without belief rationalism loses one of its legs and becomes dogma or “determinism”. Its “reason claims” are undermined by its claims. Because its claim is a claim of conscious sensation. It’s a “consciousness claim” not in any way a “reason claim”. Matter is not “justified” by belief, it is “self-evident”, it needs no belief.
2+2 doesn't just happen in my brain i can apply it to reality i can take 2 of something and then take another 2 and then count how much i have, i can even ask other people to do the same just to double check
@DrMustacho ok but that requires the number of things you have to be a meaningful concept. Which is trickier than it sounds to nail down. Like, if I have a sock, and I also have another sock. How many things is that? Like, ok, there's the two socks. But there's also the pair of socks, and don't forget the atoms inside the sock which are themselves made of stuff and for all we know it might go further. Defining "1 sock" precisely is a non-trivial task. Once you leave the abstractions of pure math, you WILL introduce subjectivity and vagueness. You can ignore a lot of complexity and precision in order to do it anyways, but in a literal sense, quantity isn't built into the universe. It may be objectively true that there is stuff in the universe, but it's not objective how you should carve that stuff into amounts which can be counted.
How does Plantinga know the difference between 1) a world in which (a good) god exists and cognitive faculties are reliable, and 2) a world in which (a bad) god exists and cognitive faculties are unreliable? How does Plantinga know he's in scenario 1, not 2?
I wouldn't say this materialistic ontology "undermines" our epistemology, it's more like it humbles our epistemology. One of the reasons why we understand to a degree how fallible our reason, knowledge and ways of obtaining both are fragile is exactly because we evolved our ontology to this point of understanding our origins. This is exactly one of the reasons a good scientific mind proposes temporary solutions, but working and to our knowledge "correct" solutions, to explain things rather than planting a rigid nail of truth/fact and knowledge at everything like dogma and theology. There they will say exactly how things are and will never dare to change them in the face of any possible corrections, because their epistemology is even more flawed due to their ontology (god did it, god is).
Are you sure you know what theology means and does? It is a "science" about the IMMATERIAL, about the ideal (not material) reality. And ideas are not changing by definition. Dogma is something else of course, but it is a matter of a Church, not of a theology itself. Of course a theologist can be dogmatic, as so many materialistic scientists are also - but this is we - people, not the ideas.
What science claims as true, is true because it's practical and reliable. The question i like to ask then is when did practicality become a precondition for truth?
Yeah, can't something still be true even if we don't possess the ability to replicate and test it? I imagine there are unprovable truths out there. Godel showed that didn't he?
@@theboombody At the end of the day, who cares for some "objective" truth? Even those who philosophisize about in or try to find it through microscopes or numbers, are passionately defending their own subjective thruths in their everyday life. Seems those adorants of science never witnessed two scientists of the same field in murderous fights with one another over their differing theories.
To reason is to correate patterns. Logic is correlation. Pattern recognition is it all there is, nothing more, nothing less. To reason is by consciousness . We only connect to the world through our senses, and interpret the inputs by our brain. My consciousness is mine and mine only, therefore I only interpret and conceive it. It's anecdotal and subjective, relative to an observer. Although we do share the very similar, same physical world. And the physical world seems the same way, too. Einstein's special relativity.
Doesn't it get worse than that? The idea that we could have evolved to not have access to the truth for the sake of our survival is just that, an idea. If it's true, how do you know that idea is true? Isn't the possibility to even ponder whether our cognitive faculties have evolved for survival rather than the truth only possible if they have not in fact evolved for survival but for truth? If this idea it's true, you can't know that it's true. The circularity is on another level, it makes my brain hurt. I'm pretty certain a claim that there is a self-evident fundamental truth that needs no justification is a way out of this madness.
3:54 what we know isn’t dictated by us it is shared by the unfolding of relatives over time and time is the current of the dimensions entangling. That might sound stupid but it’s simple. Our current perspectives start from something and expand so it’s not that we know anything but share with the thing to see. So we don’t know, we share with the knowing that all is possible and that helps us find or explore aka shine a light into the dark deep potential. It’s like hope, it’s not that you believe in hope but share with it so that it helps guide you through. It’s with you when you share with it, like god and the things we associate with god or other gods. My interpretation of god is not a singular but a sharing because how would we be free if it dictated or knew. I think god understands and freely shares, not because it always ends up back to it but because we all are free and it’s like finding our own connections and coming home. Almost like Valhalla, you don’t know you’re there until you understand and then you can share Valhalla with others. God of war sigrun hidden lowlight lore helps to understand what i mean. It’s why “i am” makes so much sense but nobody understands until they are.
The most obvious example of "truth", and the very basis of logic itself ==> cause-effect. If [this] ==> then [this]. Everything operates on that deterministic principle -- including evolution. So evolution will produce things that are "true" (organisms that survive long enough to reproduce), and those organisms themselves will operate according to "true" cause-effect relationships (they will die if they mis-estimate the danger around them). The mind was "created" by a process that itself is determined by truths (true cause-effect relationships) that "minds" must obey in order to stay alive -- this is safe, this isn't. That's why we can trust it. It is a representation / manifestation of the process that created it, which itself based on "true" cause-effect relationships. There are also lots of good reasons NOT to trust a lot of stuff that happens in minds, but that's another story ... and still does not override the hard-core, survival-determined "truths" that govern its development in the first place. Also sprach Zorro Thruster.
There's a similar but possibly nastier problem if you think that materialism implies determinism. It's plausible that evolution could be broadly truth-directed, I can think of false beliefs which would get you killed, but why trust your beliefs if they're just the result of particles following physical laws playing out in front of you?
Same under theism, btw, if god knows anything then he also knows what you’ll do tomorrow. Doesn’t matter. My computer is determined but can still produce the right answer. If you’re asking how we know that we know that we know, that chain just goes on forever until you terminate in some “well i just do,” same under theism.
@@Detson404 The most common Christian view is compatibalist, but I find open theism more convincing. So no, I don't think God knows what I'll do tomorrow. I like the computer point, let me think about it. Nah, on theism it terminates in a rational and creative mind who may be compelled to grant genuine consciousness and free will, so we have a chance of knowing the fact of the matter. On materialist determinism, it terminates in the initial conditions of the Big Bang.
@@Detson404 The answer that your computer produces is right only in the frame of the human paradigma. Human / theist's conscioussnes can transcend it and produce universally right answers. Hear me saying "conscioussnes", not mind or reason.
Yeah, faith exists specifically because you can't reason your way into a relationship with a supernatural entity that there is zero physical evidence of. Why are Christians worried about reason all of a sudden?
Because their atoms aren't bumping into each other in a specific way. You're making a category error. Water is just atoms bumping into each other, so why do waterfalls fall but water in glasses standing still on top of tables don't? Everything in the Universe is atoms bumping into each other. It's the particular configurations of the manner in which that bumping is organized that leads to distinct forms and processes and events, etc. etc.
"If consciousness is just atoms bumping into each other then why are rocks not conscious" This question assumes consciousness is not a natural phenomenon. In which case the following question makes just as much sense as yours. IF consciousness isn't 'just atoms bumping into each other' and doesn't only emerge/occur in brains, then why aren't rocks conscious? Consciousness probably isn't just 'atoms bumping into each other.' There are electrical charges and discharges too. Consciousness seems obviously directly related to things with brains. Except for things that can't be verified as existing (Gods demons, angels), nothing without a brain is conscious. One COULD ask the same question about nuclear fusion. It seems to only be happening in stars...at least naturally happening. It occurs when hydrogen fuses to form other atoms. So why doesn't the hydrogen in water or in hydrogen filled balloons 'fuse?' Because the conditions are different. So that's the explanation for consciousness not being in rocks...if consciousness is a natural process that emerges/occurs on IN brains, then other formations of matter/energy won't be conscious becasue they're not structured like brains..
@@uadhlagash7280 So then it isn't just atoms bumping into each other? Or rather, it's the particular way in which they do that gives consciousness? If so, it proves my point - consciousness is not just atoms bumping into each other, nor is it JUST "oh, it's just the way in which they do that makes it distinct from rocks."
@@ewfvds8036 No, it does not prove or disprove your point because you never provided any points. You merely asked a single rhetorical question in your original comment. Yes, it's the particular way atoms are organized into structures that allows an emergent process to exist. But that is a natural process. And the constituents are still atoms bumping into each other. Consciousness exists only because atoms exist and bump into each other in a specific manner. Theoretically, were we to reorganize the atoms in a rock to 100% copy the arrangement of atoms of a human's brain, it would have consciousness.
So long as they generate behaviours which tend to promote survival, any belief will survive and persist. Any that tend to decrease survival chances will not. It's why the belief that to kill one's children is the way to eternal life is rarely encountered, whilst that which says looking after them is the way to heaven is common - even though there is no way to verify either claim. What people with time on their hands make of the philosophical strengths and weaknesses of those beliefs (including their truth or fallaciousness) is of no interest to the universe.
Youve misrepresented the god argument. God doesnt ground rationality. The fact that we have reason and logic and not just have it but find it, points to some person putting it there. Why would the universe evolve according to logic that can be reasoned from observation and also create observers.
Disagree. The excuse, or rather defense, would be that God in fact provided no tangible evidence for His own existence. Therefore, how were we to know? The ignorant is not guilty. They'd merely be ignorant. If your asthmatic sister is dying of an asthma attack, and no one told you that there was an extra bottle of inhaler just outside the building under a bush, and you couldn't save her, in the end, you were not guilty of not saving her. You did not have sufficient information in order for you to carry out the appropriate action.
@@chrismachin2166 I completely disagree with what Paul wrote. His argument that the created world naturally leads to people thinking that a specific God created it is utterly untenable. It could very well be that a specific Goddess made it all, or 3 Goddesses, or a 100, or one God but his name is Cthulhu, not YHWH, or it could have been a flying spaghetti monster that farted the universe out of its behind. The fact that existence exists no more points to YHWH than it points to it all being a computer simulation. Paul's assertion that people would naturally concur that it was YHWH is completely arbitrary. It's tantamount to you going home finding your house ransacked and concluding that it must be a bunch of Elves that were the culprit, while for no reason ruling out every other possibility, such as that it was burglarized.
@@uadhlagash7280 Hey ,the word of God ( read 2 Timothy 3:16) is accurate. Don’t argue with me,it’s not me you will be facing on judgement day. Have you heard the Good News?
@@chrismachin2166 You can't use the Bible to prove itself. That's circular logic. Paul did not make sense. You would not go home finding your house ransacked and only conclude that Elves were the culprit and rule out every other possibility, such as that it was burglarized, any more than humans looking at existence and only conclude that Yahweh made it while ruling out every other possibility.
Your senses give you generally reliable information. Plantinga misses the point that evolution is repeated over again and over again, and homes in on reality. If you try to seize a fish a few times and miss, you place a special rule that the fish is not where it apparently is. This eventually leads to realizing if you want to go to Mars, aim where it will be, not where it is. I don't see the EAAN even presents a problem, much less a difficult one.
Whether there's a god or not, you're still relying on human reason to navigate competing truth claims. Choosing to believe in a god is just putting a cherry on top of your uncertainty sundae.
Theist here, but I've considered this question from the other side quite extensively. Does the argument that for the most part recognizing reality for what it is provides the greatest survivability?
"Why we are able to trust human intellect and rationality as a reliable guide to truth." Regarding the real world, I actually don't think we can, at least not by itself; e.g., we can use intellect and rationality to "prove" that motion is impossible, as Zeno the Greek philosopher did. That's one reason why I don't value theological or philosophical arguments. But we can test our ideas to see if they accord with reality, ideally with the tool of science, and gain confidence that we at least have approximate truth. Rather than being circular, I see these converging on truth about the real world. If theists say "those who don't believe in God, they've abandoned truth," I say the opposite is, er, true.
Seems to like a fundamental misunderstanding and oversimplification of evolution. Traits for survival and traits for truth seeking are not mutually exclusive. The human mind is so incredibly similar to that of the more primitive apes. We still very much so rely on survival instincts to function and have only very recently in human history began to even attempt to do long term reasoning. The fact that we have repurposed those instincts we evolved with to a higher purpose than the one biology intended is in no way a problem.
Except that in a way, evolution does value truth. Natural selection, by nature, would have to change beings based on truths. It’s true that predators hunt rabbits. It’s true that a shift in their color could affect their survivability rating. It’s true that rabbits that match their environment better than others survive more often that ones that don’t. All of these things are, in every sense imaginable, true. How can evolution change a species in a way that favors something other than truth?
Agree. I don't even understand how this is an intriguing question at this point. Animals that develop the ability to react to a stimulus, whether it's a correct or not, have an advantage in survival. Animals that can respond correctly to the right stimuli have an added advantage over that. It only ceases to become an advantage for questions that have little bearing on actual physical survival (e.g is God real?).
it would not be generally applicable. *certain* truths related to not dying in the next 48 hours for example would be selected. other truths might be discarded for the same purpose.
Random foaming brain chemicals say what? That rabbits are hunted? So, they are random what other random things might they say? Its global schizophrenia.
@@buglepongOK, how you think Evolution works is not how it works. I would suggest the book "The Ape that Understood the universe" by Steave Stewart Williams before you comment agian on a subject you know nothing about. I'd try to explain what exactly you got wrong, but it's kind of everything. In general though you've got the goal wrong. We're not a "survive the next 48 hours" machine. We're "Grandchildren maximizing machines."
@@myself2noone i never said people are survive 48 hours machines. Just that as an example, surviving the next 48 hours in a survival situtation has certain truth priorities to it. You can extend this to any time frame you want, but the principle is the same as long as it isnt forever. Evolution doesnt need to give us general truths.
The purpose of the search for the truth is to find a single provable miracle anywhere in the entire universe. Once we find this, the gig is up and we know that we are in the laptop of the finite simulationist, and not in the hand of the one true infallible God (who will always avoid such proof in order to not be mistaken for such a demiurge.) The further out we can push the truth of the natural world the more likely we are to have souls, but this shall always be infinity to one or zero odds against.
This problem has been solved. Read Etienne Gilson: Thomist Realism and The Critique of Knowledge. It is not a circular thought. The promise that all modernity is either materialistic or idealistic.
Ok, before watching the video I fee like I have a good answer: Because it works. Without it we couldn't have figured out how to build and code computers, as an example. Also, we learn by trial and error.
we evolved to believe 2+2=4 because its true which is also good for our survival. What helps us survive and what is true aren't mutually exclusive. If I count 2 apples, and I add 2 apples, I can count again and count 4 apples. It's true because it works, and it's grounded in reality. Theists ground it in something they made up, science just says "I don't know" and then do tests to try and find what works, and they ground that in the results of their tests without jumping to conclusions.
How about you re watch the video he explained why this Is wrong: the question is how do we know its true not that it works just because something seemingly works doesn't make it true
