Although this creationist argument is a poor one, the historical connection between evolution and racism has undeniable historical roots. The “Christian” evolutionist, Karl Giberson has written poignantly on the subject:

• [Evolutionist] Ernst Haeckel nudged the racism of the Third Reich along its malignant road by suggesting that …”You must draw [a line] between the most highly developed civilized people on the one hand and the crudest primitive people on the other and unite the latter with animals.”( Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, 76)

• How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in the Western culture at the time …shared Haeckel’s ideas. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements…there can be little doubt that such viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.

• The Holocaust would have happened with or without Charles Darwin. There can be no doubt however, that the Nazi campaign against the Jews was assisted via rhetoric and rationalization with arguments from social Darwinism. (79)

Racism seems to be endemic to the theory, even though this is strenuously denied today. While the Bible maintains an absolute distinction between man and beast, evolution postulates a gradual gradient, eliminating absolute distinctions, suggesting relative degrees of kinship.

Although this man-beast association doesn’t disprove evolution, it should encourage discussion regarding its dangers.

Agreed, the Herald news story seems to have missed or confused the real issue (or perhaps that’s just the reaction of shocked readers of the pamphlet). But isn’t the real problem misrepresentation or deliberate distortion of scientific understanding of evolution? Mind you, I haven’t seen the leaflet and it could well have gone on to justify racism. After all creationists (and religions in general) have done so in the past and some still do. And there are some really loopy creationists around.

But it’s telling that the first response (by Daniel Mann) to your post effectively launches into a common creationist lie about evolutionary science -that it “promotes racism and leads to nazism.” And that lie is not restricted just to the loopy end. It’s actively promoted by the “intelligent design” brigade which I think has a lot of influence within evangelical Christianity. In fact the attacks on people like Gibberson are often sourced from the Discovery Institute (The Wedge) people. They appear to have a real hatred for “theistic evolutionists” and actively campaign against them.

I guess you are more concerned with the unfortunate connection of racism with “creationism.” But surely that word is thoroughly tainted by now – tainted by the fanatics and extremists who use the word to describe themselves and their ideology.

But I think it would be more sensible to be concerned about the deliberate and malicious attempt to taint evolutionary science. It is very often misrepresented and maligned by creationists of one flavour or another. This particular argument, while it is water off a duck’s back to evolutionary scientists, is getting purchase amongst the Christian community. Propagandists of the ID movement do have influence there and can successfully get their material into that community. Effectively it encourages a significant proportion if Christian to come out against important areas if science – something that would really concerned me if I was theistically inclined.

I am not sure what you see as a “nasty innuendo” in my comment. I will assume it’s the piece you quote: “After all creationists (and religions in general) have done so [supported racism] in the past and some still do.” Can’t see what’s wrong with that – perhaps I could have used “some” or “most” – but all ideologies have lined up with policies in the past we now see as inhumane or immoral and sects of these still adhere to such policies. It’s not innuendo – just factual.

I don’t think most Christians and/or creationist necessarily think that way now and certainly did not suggest it.

Thanks for the link to the pamphlet. I can certainly see why creationists were mentioned in the news article because the pamphlet is clearly attributed to creationist sources. And Weekes added his own qualifier of “fanatical.” (Perhaps you should be thanking him for that).

I don’t see that “creationists” are being misrepresented in public comments because in normal usage it describes somebody who rejects evolutionary science. And as you can see from comments on the blog people really do not look sympathetically on that rejection.

I think the problem might be that your are possibly trying to retrieve the word “creationist” for a more narrow meaning which does not include rejection of science. Good luck with that – I would think this word is by now thoroughly discredited and tainted and you might be better to consider something else. (Intelligent design proponent perhaps). But even the ID people protest vehemently when they are called creationists – it s a dirty word in their eyes too (Mind you they have been caught revising their documents to replace the word hence the typo “creaintelligent design proponentits”)

Why I put quotes around “Christian” in regards to Karl Giberson: in his book, he wrote:

• Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science. Dennett’s universal acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred. (Saving Darwin, 9-10)

However, afterwards Giberson wrote approvingly of statements by Richard Dawkins about the OT God:

• “tyrannical anthropomorphic deity,” “commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages”…but who believes in this [OT] deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.” http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/

I’ll allow others to judge whether or not to call him a “Christian.” I am merely citing his own profession.

“I am not sure what you see as a “nasty innuendo” in my comment. I will assume it’s the piece you quote:“After all creationists (and religions in general) have done so [supported racism] in the past and some still do.” Can’t see what’s wrong with that – perhaps I could have used “some” or “most” – but all ideologies have lined up with policies in the past we now see as inhumane or immoral and sects of these still adhere to such policies. It’s not innuendo – just factual.”

Except, that was not the comment Glenn quoted nor was it what you said, what you said was as follows:

“Mind you, I haven’t seen the leaflet and it could well have gone on to justify racism. After all creationists (and religions in general) have done so [supported racism] in the past and some still do”

It was this quote in full, not the snipped part you refer to which Glenn cited. It was the full quote he clearly responded to. Anyone who reads the above can see this.

Glenn… in response to your comment ” I sincerely hope that you do not mean to imply that a believer in evolution cannot be a Christian.”…

Of course… one can be a Christian and believe any number of untrue things. One can be a christian and believe many things the total opposite of what the bible says. One can be a christian and say parts of what Jesus said was wrong.

Lots of christians do this. There are christians who believe in abortion, there are christians who believe in homosexuality, there are christians who believe in polygamy, there are christians who are ok with adultery, who are okay with lying, stealing and the list goes on.

Does this mean their belief is good or sound? no.

So sure, one can believe in evolution and be a christian – but it’s a pretty big slap in the face to Jesus to go against what He said he has done.

But regardless of that, I find your statement “creationism isn’t true” shows a total lack of understanding of science. I mean no offense. Unlike most of what is called “theory” in science, both creation and evolution theories are not totally provable or totally disprovable. No one can go back in time, and there is no 100% proof belonging to either theory. From a scientific viewpoint, any accurate truthful scientist cannot state “creationism isn’t true”… unless he’s built himself a time machine.

As a scientist, I find your statement laughable. Actually, as a scientist, I find evolution laughable too. It is an unproven joke that basically relies on magic to happen. If many members of the science community weren’t so determined to “prove” that no god exists, it would have been laughed out of consideration more than a century ago.

There is a reason the intelligent design movement is growing – because evolution is ridiculous. Whether people believe in a 6 day creation less than 10,000 years ago, or in intelligent aliens creating everything billions of years ago… one only has to look at the universe – physics, chemistry, biology and everything in between – to see that there is no way this all just randomly fell into place by accident.

There was a quote I heard in my early studies, and the chance of even a single cell organism evolving is smaller than the chance of a tornado blowing through a junk yard and putting together a 100% correctly formed boeing 747. billions of magnitudes smaller in chance. And an honest evolutionist will tell you this is true. Yet people choose to believe evolution still. We look at a 747 and know what it was created and built, but yet some people think a human being, something infinitely more complex just magically happened to get here?

As a scientist and a rational, logical person who looks at the scientific evidence, I vehemently reject the joke of the theory of evolution. But hey… if you want to believe it, it’s not my job to convince you otherwise.

Ken Ham also asks his readers to pray for those who disagree with him. He also (I think) insinuates that those who don’t share his views on creation must somehow not care what Jesus said, and prefer their own opinion. Julie, all this shows is a willingness to believe the worst of fellow believers, and it’s disappointing to see.

Matthew – I hope your sense of humour is available when I tell you your appearance out of the blue with an irrelevant question reminds me of Pancho coming Don Quixote’s aid against an imaginary windmill.

My answer to your question is that surely intentional and malicious misrepresentation of facts or people is certainly wrong.

But I also recognise that humans are not rational. It is just intuitive for us to select material to fit preconceived models. Such misandersanding can be overcome though by honest discussion.

Ken: “You – appeared to be mostly concerned with misrepresentation of creationists. Why the hell you should rush to the defence if this particular motley crew is beyond me.”

Yes, you do seem confused over why I would defend people you disagree with when they are misrepresented.

I actually did several things here. I firstly said that I think creationists are wrong. I also noted that they misunderstand the science (the chimp reference here was a good example), and I also explained why I think this argument against evolution involving racism is a non-starter. You didn’t mention any of this – I think this is because that would involve presenting my position as more fair and balanced, and that doesn’t serve your ends.

But why I want to defend “this particular motley crew” is for the following reasons:

Firstly, I do not want there to be even a shadow of misconception that I’m happy to sit by, turn a blind eye and let them be maligned because I disagree with them and therefore don’t care.

Secondly, because there seems to be a widespread acceptance that this “motley crew” misunderstands the science. That argument scarcely needs to be made at all, which is why, beyond stating that I think they do misunderstand the science, I chose not to go on about it.

Thirdly and most importantly, the above point in turn can easily lead to the attitude that those who criticise creationists can do no wrong, and that attention should always be focused on the false beliefs of creationists and any wrongs done to them should simply be overlooked. Indeed, I saw this attitude peeping through when, in response to my concerns, you assured me that this isn’t the real issue, the “real problem” is the way that creationists get the science wrong. You may well have (as quickly as possible) said that the story “missed or confused the real issue” – the critics of creationism couldn’t possibly do that sort of thing deliberately, but the creationists? Oh my, their sins are as willful as possible! This plays into the treatment of creationists as an easy-to-hate minority who should just take everything on the chin, and I think that is very unfair.

These are the reasons why I chose to “rush to the defence if this particular motley crew.” Do they seem like fair enough reasons to you?

you’re welcome 🙂

“You see as “most important” the idea that “those who criticise creationists can do no wrong.” ”

I don’t even believe that idea, let alone see it as important.

But I certainly do see that attitude in criticisms of creationists. The attitude seems to be that any negative comments about what creationists have to say is fair game – because they’re creationist dummies. This has little to do with my understanding of the scientific process.

As for the comparison with climate scientists – not even close. Contrary to your flamboyant language, those attacks were not extremist. The claim was made that some scientists had used or adjusted data inappropriately. I submit that this is not at all like attacking people as racists.

I guess i just have to quote at greater length Glenn. You said:
“Thirdly and most importantly, the above point in turn can easily lead to the attitude that those who criticise creationists can do no wrong, and that attention should always be focused on the false beliefs of creationists and any wrongs done to them should simply be overlooked.”

Simply relying on the reactions of the citizens of Kawarau (who appear to have seen the leaflet as advocating racism) or the headlines of a newspaper simply doesn’t justify such an overarching claim. Especially as there is so much malicious maligning of honest science coming from creationists in general. And they give you Christians who accept evolution a pretty bad rap too – they malign you.

The fact is most criticism of creationists results from attempts to get through to them the facts of the science. I imagine the group behind this leaflet will not be accepting the criticisms of them you made – perhaps they will say you think you “can do no wrong.”

As for your attempt to claim the the attacks on climate scientist are not extremist I will have to disagree – clearly the accusation of scientific fraud was and is being made. None of the claims had any basis and have all been discredited. No-one here has apologised despite the High Court judgement.

As a scientist I see accusations of scientifuc fraud as every bit as malicious and damaging (in some ways more so) as accusations of racism. After all how many of this motley crew would face loss of employment and banning from their profession (the usual minimum punishment for scientific fraud) because of racism accusations.

I guess our positions cannot be reconciled – I have a soft spot for honest scientists – you have a soft spot for creationists and climate change deniers/contrarians/sceptics/cranks.

“The thing is, most chimpanzees are fair-skinned!”

David: Well, it wouldn’t be the first scientific error they made, David. But that doesn’t make them racist. Remember – they were only talking about colour. You agree, I presume, that they are correct about eye colour and hair colour. Being wrong about skin colour doesn’t suddenly make them racist. They might be making a crazy argument, but that is another matter again.

Ken: “Simply relying on the reactions of the citizens of Kawarau (who appear to have seen the leaflet as advocating racism) or the headlines of a newspaper simply doesn’t justify such an overarching claim”

But I never made the case for this observation based on this article. Instead, as I tried to tell you, I responded to this one example in this way because of the many other observations I have made about this tendency – to give any form of a creationist bashing a free pass.

Oh well.

PS: The response of the court was to decline to settle the matter, deeming it not a proper matter for the court to settle as it is a specialist field of science. Just so you know. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7634556/Climate-sceptics-fail-in-Niwa-case).

I do note, however, your attempt to distract from the misrepresentation of creationists with an allegation that other people were (according to you), misrepresented too. So… this creationist motley crew should just suck it up. This reinforces my view that in spite of disagreeing with creationists, I really should stick up for them when they are misrepresented in the media and branded as hateful racists.

“Glenn – you can’t pass off your personal responsibility that easily”

I don’t have any! And again, you cannot distract or justify what is being said about creationists just because you don’t like what people have claimed about techniques used by NIWA. Your beliefs about the sins of one group do not justify the sins of another.

“Despite your denial the only support for your case that you gave was the Herald article.”

Ken, you’re not listening. I commented on the case seen in the Herald article not because I want to use it to show that there was a preexisting trend of people giving creationist bashers a free pass. It’s the other way around. It’s because I so often see people give creationist bashers a free pass that I decided to comment on this article in the Herald.

There is nothing cowardly about the victims here – the creationists in question. How are they cowardly just because the Herald are viciously misrepresenting them? Or do you think that the people who put that letter in people’s mailboxes have the same access to having their side of the story printed in the herald? That’s not very realistic, is it? Bad argument or not, creationists have made it at various times on the internet, so it’s not like “their side” is some great secret that they’re scared of revealing.

Do you think it would be appropriate for the herald to apologise for viciously misrepresenting these creationists as racists, Ken? I certainly do.

Ken, with all due respect I think what’s happening here is that it’s just really uncomfortable for you to see the dreaded creationists simply as victims of wrongdoing, and you just can’t let the moment pass without throwing something back (like suggesting that maybe in the same article they went on to defend racism, or when that was shown not to be the case, pointing at unrelated cases where people in unrelated fields were accused of improper practices). Just take a deep breath, look in the mirror and say: “Creationists were wronged here. They did not deserve it, and people were dishonest in their treatment of these creationists. There is no excuse, and no other examples of anyone wronging anyone else can justify this. I will not wriggle, I will not point fingers elsewhere, I will not try to change the subject. This happened, it was done to creationists and it was wrong. End of story.”

It’s hard to do when you have so much invested in disliking the victims! But even though I disagree with them, I have brought myself to say exactly this. Good luck doing the same, Ken.

Do let me know whether or not you think an apology from the Herald would be appropriate. Cheers. 🙂

Glenn, re Comment 24: (tried to respond to this last night but my reply disappeared into the ether when I tried to send it – hopefully this works better!)
You say: “You agree, I presume, that they are correct about eye colour and hair colour. Being wrong about skin colour doesn’t suddenly make them racist.” But many Europeans have brown eyes and black hair. We also tend to be hairier than Africans, and have narrower lips, while chimps have almost no lips at all. I say the shoe fits – chimps don’t look any more like Africans than they do Europeans, and for these people to say they do makes them racists in my book.

I suppose one should ask, why is there this readiness to accept that Africans look more like chimps than we do? Probably it has to do with an old creationist concept, the Great Chain of Being. This held that all of Creation could be ranked, from lowest to highest, from sponges to angels, in an unbroken chain. Since the Creation was the physical manifestation of God’s Thought, a gap in the chain would be like having a gap in the mind of God (as an aside, this is where the expression “missing link” comes from – missing links pre-date evolution and are actually more of a problem for creationism than they are for evolutionary theory). Under this view, the lowest humans must be little higher than the highest animals, and when Europeans first encountered chimps (back in the 16th century), that is the interpretation they came up with. They “knew” that they themselves were the highest form of human, and that Africans, whom they enslaved, were the lowest. The chimps were little different, in their view, from the pygmies running around naked in the forest.

There is a lot about creationist thought that is profoundly racist. Modern creationists try to play down the ideas of their antecedents (or have forgotten them entirely), but occasionally the old prejudices show through. Evolutionary theory on the other hand, despite creationist claims to the contrary, makes it clear that all humans are very closely related, and all are equally distant from chimps – or for that matter any other species (see my Comment 22 above).

“They’re so stupid, I can’t conclusively say they aren’t actually raging, though [i]incoherent[/i], racists”

DrJ: That’s pretty poor thinking there. They offered an argument (albeit a bad one) that only works if they tacitly reject racism. If you don’t think that indicates that they oppose racism, then there’s little to say to you about it.

David: “But many Europeans have brown eyes and black hair.”

Quite right. But that’s no objection. The author of this argument must simply say that those people, according to evolution, should be deemed less evolved (yes, absurd, I know). Their point was just that those traits are nearly always present in black people, so the evolutionist (allegedly) must say that all black people are less evolved. It’s a really easy argument to understand, even if it’s a really bad argument.

I know it would be useful for some to brush these people who make these bad arguments off as racists. But that is not honest.

And Ken – again, it’s silly to say that these creationists haven’t made a peep. How would you know? Do you expect them to have the same level of editorial access to major newspapers? Come off it… But as you wish, continue to draw attention to other issues. Thanks for the chat.

Glenn, this is quite simple. They chose characters which they thought made black people look like chimps – namely hair colour, eye colour and (incorrectly) skin colour. They clearly believe black people look more like chimps than white people do. But if you choose other characters (degree of hairiness, thickness of lips) then you could equally (and equally absurdly) claim that white people look more like chimps. The big giveaway is skin colour – it’s usually fair in chimps (though there are exceptions) but these people seem to believe chimps have black skin.

I saw this pamphlet myself when it did the rounds of my part of the rural Waikato a few months ago. I thought then that it was amusing how they were accusing others of racism when their own racism was glaringly obvious. The unexamined assumption at the heart of this pamphlet is that black people really do look like chimps – that is an incorrect and thoroughly racist view, and Danielle Hayes, the good people of Kawerau and the NZ Herald called it correctly. You do yourself no favours in attempting to defend this.

Once again, I’m not brushing them off as racists because they’re making bad arguments; their arguments don’t come into it, bad as they are. I’m saying they’re racists because they believe black people look like chimps. Sorry to labour the point, but I’m obviously having trouble making myself understood.

Glenn, I’ll just repeat the question the from my previous comment:

“Now you claim you “often see people give creationist bashers a free pass.” But the evidence isn’t there – only the Herald article. And who do you mean by “creation bashers.” People like you and me crtical of their naive misrepresentation of the science? Evolutionary scientists who answer their creationist critics?

Be specific.”

We have plenty of evidence of “climate scientist bashing” around here but you avoid a simple question. I don’t think you have evidence of any significant “creationist bashing.”

Ken,

If you are willing to hear some testimonial evidence, let me just share my observations. I have NEVER seen the US mainstream media give one ounce of recognition to creationism or even ID. Meanwhile, we are constantly bombarded with programming that pushes evolution.

the trouble with “climate change” is that there are expert scientists on both sides of the debate as to whether or not it is anthropogenic in origin. this puts Glenn in a difficult position re climate change, because if he tends to think the worst of scientists [ as Ken insists ] then he will be prejudiced against both sides of the debate !!!

finally for the moment, there is a fundamental difference between having a soft spot for creationists and objecting to wilfull mischaracterisation in the media [especially if its reporting rather than commentary that is involved].
i admit that the current fashion for all news to have apparent commentary rather than strict reporting is a pet hate of mine, it makes news reports far less trustworthy.

Jeremy, I should have explained that accusation of scientific fraud is extremely serious. It can lead to loss of job, banning access to funding and effectively banning from the profession. At a minimum. So it should never be done lightly or taken lightly.

Misrepresenting of anonymous creationists from Kawarau in the Herald because of an unattributed, poorly written and argued leaflet and the strong reactions of the recipients cannot even be compared with accusation of scientific fraud.

Pointing out that murder is a far more serious crime than shoplifting does not somehow make shoplifting less reprehensible.

Glenn, have you ever thought of doing an episode on your podcast on creationism. I am interested in hearing more about your comments at the beginning of this article, and how you might differ with certain views of creation and evolution.

Matthew – do I need to repeat my answer?

“My answer to your question is that surely intentional and malicious misrepresentation of facts or people is certainly wrong.

But I also recognise that humans are not rational. It is just intuitive for us to select material to fit preconceived models. Such misandersanding can be overcome though by honest discussion.”

“But I also recognise that humans are not rational. It is just intuitive for us to select material to fit preconceived models. Such misandersanding can be overcome though by honest discussion.”

Is this supposed to be irony?

Ken, I believe it was you who kept trying to talk about climate science in this discussion. I certainly didn’t introduce it. And now here you are again trying to give it centre stage! I’m trying to talk about the misrepresentation of creationists.

In future, queries about the location of unrelated blog posts can be sent privately. I can’t find the one you’re referring to. However I can find other posts that explain that because of comments in that discussion, I had to add a blog policy against libel. This is because a person in that thread engaged in libel, and it’s possible that this is why it was removed (since you brought it up – that person was you). I’ll honestly say that I don’t recall why I removed it, but this may have been the reason.

I think, however, that instead of shooting back that I’m a “worrier,” you might actually see from the above that you’ve talked out of both sides of your mouth in this thread here, just to have a go at me for defending creationists. Changing your mind about what I think about creationists even. Ah well – I just wanted to get things back on topic (your new comment undoes some of that! Please don’t keep it up – this thread is about this particular blog entry.)

[Further comments that are simply talking about climate change scientists or my earlier blog entries that relate to them will be removed, as they will be deemed intentionally off topic. Please refer to the blog policy, which all commenters here have read.]

“I have read in papers like the NYT Nagel’s review of Plantinga’s book, ” Given Nagel is an atheist, and Plantinga in the book in question critiques ID, rejects it and argues for the compatibility of theism and evolution, and explicitly rejects creationism, the suggestion that this is an example of “creationism” being given good press is odd.

Perhaps if you reflect back on my comment about irony above you might see the point I was making now.

David whether it happened instantaneously or over billions of years, makes no difference. All the time in the universe can’t provide enough time for the magic needed for evolution to occur.

Ignoring that it goes against the bible and makes no sense for a christian to believe it, at least theistic evolution makes more sense than non-theistic evolution. The universe just randomly arranging itself… life just randomly arranging itself… even many trillions of years would not be enough time for this to produce even a single cell organism by chance.

Evolution without supernatural input is virtual impossible, and if you believe in a supernatural being who can make things happen, then you don’t need an impossible theory like evolution to explain how the universe and life got here.

Any honest evolutionist will tell you that there are so many parts of evolution that cannot be logically explained.

Julie, I do not believe it’s insulting or hypocritical to say that there are people – even highly intelligent and educated people in the sciences, who misunderstand the science. Not at all. That is not “bashing,” it is merely to say that you think one side is right and the other is wrong, which is what you yourself have done.

I am sure that you don’t find it insulting or hypocritical to say that people much more educated than you in theology or biblical studies misunderstand the Bible in accepting evolution. Neither, then, is it insulting or “bashing” to say that educated people who accept creationism have gotten the science wrong. Mere disagreement is not bashing, and to take mere disagreement as an insult is to be far too sensitive.

I have defended creationists against “bashing” (ridicule, unfair lampooning and the like), but that does not forbid me from saying that they misunderstand the science, for that is not bashing, but simply disagreement.

Ken, actually Plantinga rejects the views of Behe in his book, and has a whole section p 225-236 critiquing Behe’s arguments and offering reasons why he thinks they are unsuccessful. Nor does he use them to show evolution and theism are compatible. He argues for that thesis in chapters 1 and 2 where he does not mention Behe at all.

As for your comments about

“I quote philosopher Marteen Boudry who shows how unscientific Plantinga is being by trying to introduce into science something with no more justification than “logical possibility:”

“But if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred. Evolution (or gravity, plate tectonics, lightning, for that matter) could as well be directed by space aliens, Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster.”

This shows how little you understand the argument in question, if the question is whether two beliefs A and B are logically compatible then all one needs to do to show they are is demonstrate a logical possibility of both A and B. Of course if you wanted to argue that the conjunction of A and B were both true you would need to offer something more and Plantinga would be the first to admit this, but as he points out he is not arguing A and B are both true he is arguing they are logically compatible.

Like I said Ken your comments about not misrepresenting other people strike me and I suspect most people familiar with your MO as irony. Particularly when you claim an author who writes a book with 10 pages critiquing and rejecting an argument actually supports the argument and you continue to do so after its pointed out.

S0me less charitable might call that lying. But then Plantinga is not a climate scientist and so all those apparent scruples about misrepresenting other people no longer counts.

Ken says “Matt, Plantinga actually uses the arguements of Michael Behe – one of the leading proponents of ID, to argue that random variation is impossible without some sort of guidance – and you know what guidance he wants.”

Not even close Ken,

” As far as I can make out, Draper is right: Behe’s argument, taken as Draper takes it , is by no means airtight. Behe has not demonstrated that there are irreducibly complex systems such that it is impossible or even monumentally improbable that they have evolved in a Darwinian fashion” (Pg 231 ‘Where the Conflict really lies’)

“(Or do you have a different explanation for why he says evolution is incompatible with evolutionary science? If so I am interested to hear it).’

Plantinga says Naturalism AND evolution are incompatible with science. This statement is in regards to his EAAN, not his views on Behe.

“Mind you, this is beside the point. I am not arguing here that Plantinga is a creationist – although I would argue that “theistic evolution” of this sort or calibre inevitably is no better than creationism and that Plantinga is both philosophically and scientifically wrong to argue simply on the basis of logically possibility.”

First off, let’s get something out of the way before we speak of whether or not Theistic evolution > Naturalist evolution.

Philosophical naturalism has not been proven to be a scientific fact or proven by philosophical arguments, correct?

Take Paul Draper’s definition of naturalism (which is what I mean by philosophical naturalism) “the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system” in the sense that “nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it.”

It is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism as defined here is the antithesis of supernaturalism.

^Correct Glenn , I guess I could have been a bit clearer as all I put was ‘ Naturalism AND evolution’ so I can see how it’s possible Ken could be confused here, but I agree with Glenn here.

No Glenn – it was more fun taunting Cornell’s pretentiousness. Really intrigued that he could not give a straight answer – telling I would say. I have never trusted people ho rely on TLAs and FLAs.

As for quotes – I gave a few in a recent comment. I also note how Plantinga uses that old theological trick of qualification to enable a retreat when criticised – as you are well aware. I repeat for example:

Plantinga argues that “The scientific theory of evolution just as such is entirely compatible with the thought that God has guided and orchestrated the course of evolution, planned and directed it, in such a way as to achieve the ends he intends. Perhaps he causes the right mutations to arise at the right time; perhaps he preserves certain populations from extinction; perhaps he is active in many other ways.” Plantinga wants to throw away an important aspect of evolutionary understanding even declaring this blind nature of variation “is no part of the scientific theory as such.” (He is wrong there).

Here he is using what he thinks are logical possibilites, but at the same time inserts the word “perhaps”. In other places he is even more extreme in his deniability assertions.

His whole argument is based on such “logical possibilities” even though made deniable.

But he still ends with strong assertions.

He gives the purpose of his book this way:

“My overall thesis: there is a superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism.” (The latter is of course his chief purpose.)

And concludes:
“I mean to argue that one can’t sensibly believe both naturalism and the scientific theory of evolution. If my argument is cogent, it follows that there is deep and serious conflict between naturalism and evolution, and hence deep conflict between naturalism and science. . . . .
one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and current evolutionary theory; that combination of beliefs is self-defeating. But then there is a deep conflict between naturalism and one of the most important claims of current science.”

And

“there is indeed a science/religion conflict, all right, but it is not between science and theistic religion: it is between science and naturalism. That’s where the conflict really lies.”

These are extremely strong assertions to base on a logical possibilities which even he concedes are only that. Hence the validity of Dennett’s superman argument which Plantinga could not refute but could only get upset about.

Now, could you point me to the argument you claim is not reliant on deniable logical possibility? I haven’t seen it – but then again I may be more critical. But it is vital to his credibility, surely.

Cornell, just mopping up a few of the scraps – really the only points i could see worth discussing.

You are “asserting . . . that the mind has no assurance of the validity of corporeality”. Oh yeah, on what basis – logical possibility again?. And you don’t act as if you believe that at all.

“You are being asked to demonstrate the existence of the physical world and you are trying to use the physical world (cf: look at the planes and the boats) to demonstrate it.” Not true – I pointed out you use planes and boats and computers. I didn’t say “look”. Think about Marx’s Feurbach theses – something along the lines that up till now philosophers have only attempted to describe the world, but the point is to change it. (Don’t rely on my quote – look it up, maybe google it. It’s a very powerful statement and if you don’t understand it’s meaning you can’t understand a scientific philosophy). To know reality you must interact with reality – not just look at it or abstractly think about it. Therein lies the significance of Marx’s thesis. This is what science does and you admit it is extremely successful. The proof of the pudding is in the eating – another important philosophical principle.

You could not live if you refused to make the reasonable inference that reality exists and attempted to deny that because you didn’t have a water-tight deduction. The very fact that you participate in a discussion, use computers, and whatever else you do attests to the fact you do make that inference and are quite happy with it. As I said, the “prove reality exists” debate is a naive trick performed by first year philosophy students (well they did 50 years ago – it looks like nothing changes). Most grow out of it. And anyone who uses it demonstrates they don’t understand the nature of scientific inference or scientific knowledge.

“I don’t know any philosopher in academia that is a naturalist and a Theist at the same time. It really makes no sense.” Yes, another reason to keep well clear of undefined words with confusing and multiple connotations. Do you know any scientists? Are you aware that many scientists are religious believers, mostly Hindu, but quite a lot of Christians? Yet they have no problem with evolutionary science as described by Dawkins in your quote (which I think you would say is “naturalist” – I don’t). The science doesn’t include any gods, goblins, or whatever – because there just isn’t the evidence or necessity. It’s got nothing to do with religious orientation. They don’t feel the need to include their gods or demons in the way that Plantinga insists. And they don’t see that as a threat to their beliefs, as far as I am aware, because they are still protected by logical possibility despite no evidence. Certainly I have never insisted that all my beliefs, however irrelevant, be included in any scientific hypothesis I have formulated. Unless, of course, there was good evidence to do so. It would be childishly unscientific to do that.

I think it’s fair to say that this is…

“Not true – I pointed out you use planes and boats and computers.”

Ken, this doesn’t even begin to address Cornell’s question. Not even in the least. What if Cornell is wrong about the physical world existing? What if you’re the only person that even exists. You really – really – are missing it.

Glenn – you are joking to make the claim that my quoted comment “doesn’t even begin to address” when it is in fact the beginning of several paragraphs addressing Cornell’s use of first year student tricks. And why do you feel the need to intervene on his behalf? He will learn more by doing his own dirty work.

Now Glenn, I said I wasn’t surprised at how you manipulated and misrepresented my comments and quote from Marteen’s review. You are so blatant as to start your bolding from the quote after the “if” rather than before as it suites your misrepresentation better. Again the old problem of failures in the cognitive faculties, eh? Or is it something more conscious.

I believe that Plantinga does rely purely on logical possibility. Sure he makes this reliance deniable – the common theology trick – but given the strength of his conclusions and his complete lack of evidence for his attempt to claim “divine” guidance in variation and selection, that is the only conclusion I can draw. Now, if you believe otherwise provide the justification. Tell me where Plantinga provides evidence for a claim which he makes about the science (but actually conflicts with what the practitioners of that science know).

It’s a simple request you can easily satisfy if you are honest in your claims. If you aren’t honest you’ll continue to attempt diversion and confusion by misrepresenting me. By claiming that I was making the naive assertion that Plantinga believes that simple logical possibility is sufficient to establish an important scientific theory or body of knowledge. I have said clearly I don’t think Plantinga believes or asserts that at all – his use of the deniability clauses shows that. Just that this is, despite his denial, what he is actually doing by coming to such strong conclusions in the absence of evidence. Again, perhaps he could blame his faulty cognitive faculties. But it’s a simple matter – just point me to the evidence you claim he uses.

I repeat, Glenn, that if you are honest you will describe the evidence you claim Plantinga relies on, and perhaps that will clear up a misunderstanding on my part. If you are dishonest you will continue to confuse the matter, continue to distort and misrepresent and avoid searching for any evidence Plantinga has hidden in his text.

I have fulfilled the childish demand you put on me for quotes. Your behaviour now will identify where you stand and that will either lead me to revise my beliefs about Plantinga’s claims or confirm me in my current beliefs. I don’t mind either way. But I will draw my conclusions – no more mucking around.

However, obviously I won’t hold my breath – nor will I waste any sleep on the matter. I am off to bed and will check tomorrow to see if you have found the missing evidence.

Ken, my advice would be to drop the whole reductio/FSM business. It is childish, and it is poor philosphy. As Cornell and I have shown, they don’t get you any traction. You yourself stated that a position must be supported by good philosophy and reason. To counter Plantinga’s EAAN you should probably first read his recent formulation first. (Is it okay if I link the paper Glenn?)

http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/all/profiles/plantinga-alvin/documents/CONTENTANDNATURALSELECTION.pdf

“But if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility,”

This is one of the worst misrrepresentations of Plantinga that I have seen. I’m just commenting in order to subscribe to this thread, as I want to see the attempt to back this up. It’s going to be painful, I suspect. But we’ll see. Make it good, Ken!

Plantinga actually has a forthcoming paper titled “Content and Natural Selection,” where he presents a recent formulation of his EAAN and defends it. It is 34 pages long and provides a very good basis for the debate (concerning the compatibility of Naturalism and Evolution). It can be viewed through the University of Notre Dame’s philosophy page (People -> Alvin Plantinga).

I encourage the interlocutors in this comment thread to check it out.

The paper is about his EAAN, not about theistic evolution or Behe. He presents and defends his claim that naturalism and evolution are logically incompatible, kind of like a square circle or a married bachelor. If he is successful in showing that the two are logically contradictory, then he does not need experimental data. No amount of empirical evidence is required to say that a square circle cannot exist.

“OK, Zia, so nothing in this new paper to support his premises. I won’t bother reading it then – there is no point.”

“Your squares and circles are logical tricks, dishonest ones.”

“Plantinga is not attacking “naturalism,” he is attacking evolutionary science…”

Therein lies your problem. You are arguing against Plantinga’s EAAN based on one line from a review. That’s equivalent to a creationist attacking evolution without even reading a biology textbook. And explain to me how “squares and circles” are logical trickery. All I am saying is that a contradication cannot ever be true, like a married bachelor. That is Logic 101, the Law of Non-Contradiction. How is that a dishonest? And Plantinga’s EAAN is not attacking evolutionary science. Just read the paper. He is using evolutionary theory to argue not against methodological naturalism, which is an assumption of science, but rather he is attacking metaphysical naturalism. Emphasis on metaphysical. As in the philosophical worldview. Though I am now convinced that simply asking you to read and understand your opponent’s argument before debating is too much.

Chopped off again:

I see such unwarranted assertions as a sign of weakness or laziness on your part.

Come on Zia. I have asked specific questions here – perhaps you could answer them honestly. I have also asked you to look at Plantinga’s premises (not his logic) – tell me which ones you think are empirically supported and which not. I have given you specific examples – you could consider them, tell me where you think I am wrong if you do. I welcome a spirited debate between people with different understandings as long as it is honest.

None if these silly assertions about reading only one line of a review.

Ken – of course it was “chopped off.” There’s a character limit, and a countdown to let you know when you’ve gone over it. When the counter reaches zero and your post stops getting longer as you type – that’s a message that it’s reached the limit and you need to be more succinct. I did that by design.

Ken, since I strongly suspect that you’ve never even seen a copy of Plantinga’s book (while feeling free to criticise it and its contents as “childish,” Here’s a snippet I came across today while reading my copy. I didn’t even hunt this one out, just a random example. Notice how he uses logical possibility. Observe:

Darwinian science could perhaps show that it is possible that the structures and traits in question have come to be by way of unguided evolution. It wouldn’t be necessary to show that they actually did come to be by way of unguided evolution; it would suffice to show that it could have happened that way. So the idea would be to show that the eye, for example, could have come to be by Darwinian evolution, unguided by the hand of deity (or other intelligent agents). Of course bare logical possibility is not enough: it is logically possible that the horse, say, sprang into being from the unicellular level (bacteria, perhaps) in one magnificent leap. What the Darwinian has to show, to provide a defeater, is an unguided evolutionary path which is not prohibitively improbable.

This isn’t part of his argument for theism, as I said it’s just a random selection. But it might be educational for you to look at the role he sees for logical possibility. He points out that the very least that the proponent of any position must do is to show that a belief is possible – but not just logically possible, because that’s far too weak (are you listening?). Arguments for a position must also show that the position in question is probably (stated negatively – not prohibitively improbable). In other words, when it comes to showing that a theory is possible, Plantinga goes out of his way to explain why logical possibility isn’t enough.

Worth remembering when engaging in future discussions about Plantinga’s views, perhaps. Better yet – read the book. 🙂

For what it’s worth – I noted the claim about Plantinga that Ken made (Glenn drew attention to this)

I noted that Glenn specifically asked for Ken to back this up.

I noted that Ken then made his whole case by saying: Well… I don’t understand how it couldn’t be true. Glenn – explain it for me.

I noted that Glenn pointed out that it’s not his job to do this, because Ken had made a claim about Plantinga, and he needed to show that he knew what he was talking about.

I then noted that Ken left the discussion, said that Glenn wasn’t mature and that was the end of it.

And that’s how it played out. I’m amazed you were as patient as this Glenn. You were indeed being trolled.

Sandra, perhaps you should reveal your interests? It would be the honest thing to do.

Simply, Glenn was asked the same question I have asked the rest. What is the empirical basis for Plantinga’s premises? Forget the logic he uses – if his starting point is wrong his conclusions will be too. He makes very strong conclusions – but why?

Glenn was unable to provide his empirical bases. For example – on what basis does Plantinga rest his claim that evolution, the variation, mutations, and selection is guided? A fundamental basis to his argument which is not supported by evidence and disagrees with the science.

I finally told Glenn if he refused I would draw my own conclusions. I have and there is no further discussion to be had with him.

Sandra, perhaps you can answer my question? Or perhaps you will refuse to as well?

Consider it a test.

Ken says “I pointed out you use planes and boats and computers. I didn’t say “look”. Think about Marx’s Feurbach theses – something along the lines that up till now philosophers have only attempted to describe the world, but the point is to change it. (Don’t rely on my quote – look it up, maybe google it. It’s a very powerful statement and if you don’t understand it’s meaning you can’t understand a scientific philosophy). To know reality you must interact with reality – not just look at it or abstractly think about it. Therein lies the significance of Marx’s thesis. This is what science does and you admit it is extremely successful. The proof of the pudding is in the eating – another important philosophical principle.”

I find it very ironic that a freshman philosophical question is giving you such a tough time, but then again you’ve been wrong about virtually everything, so let me deal with this utter sophistry.

First off you beg the question that reality is not just an illusion and that the Marx’s thesis truly exists independently of your perception. Again you PRESUPPOSE the external world to be real with nothing but an assertion based on FAITH. You also PRESUPPOSE the reliability of the senses, and the fact that OTHER MINDS exist besides your own. So you are arguing in a circle, you are using the physical world whilst trying to prove the physical world exists. In undergraduate courses they go over this factor by citing “Plato’s Cave’ I guess you must have missed out on that.

“Glenn was unable to provide his empirical bases. For example – on what basis does Plantinga rest his claim that evolution, the variation, mutations, and selection is guided? A fundamental basis to his argument which is not supported by evidence and disagrees with the science.”

Where is the empirical or scientific evidence that states ‘evidence’ can only be empirical or scientific?

Are you a logical positivist/verificationist? If so LOL for thinking you could actually make a serious objection to anything Plantinga says, in fact he is waaaay out of your league regarding epistemology as well as anything that deals with philosophy. I’m afraid that in the end you ultimately look like a naive first year philosophy student trying to take on the professor who has written over a hundred peer-reviewed articles in academia. It’s too bad Plantinga > you in just about everything.

Sophistry doesn’t work very well in academia, and thank God for that.

Cornell, I take it you either won’t, or can’t, answer my question? It’s surely very clear and simple. It was put to Glenn, who reneged – so he’s out. It was put to you Sandra and Zia – several times. I am waiting for a sensible reply. Final opportunity.

I repeat it:
“What is the empirical basis for Plantinga’s premises? Forget the logic he uses – if his starting point is wrong his conclusions will be too. He makes very strong conclusions – but why?”

This is the final chance for you three.

I will interpret refusal to answer, or attempt to answer, as confirmation of my own conclusions) which seems reasonable enough). Plantinga does not start with credible empirical science, and whatever attempts he makes to find a basis (as in mentioning Behe’s claims) are ruled out by his own deniability clauses. His conclusion are clearly wrong.

I won’t bother with that question again (but may come up with a new one).

And I won’t be diverted by silly first year philosophy student trick questions or emotional personal attack. Long past that one. Such behaviour is a sign of inability.

Keep in mind Ken, anything that you type to me from this point on HAS to be validated by empirical science in order for me to take it as relevant, if not then then BY YOUR LOGIC, I will not take it seriously.

“What is the empirical basis for Plantinga’s premises?”

Begs the question that premises can only be true if they are empirical. So are you against anything a priori?

“Forget the logic he uses”

Begs the question that your logic is correct, I also heard that Plantinga holds to the law of non-contradiction, so if you want me to dismiss the law of non-contradiction then I will have to read this statement as ‘forget the logic he uses, and Don’t forget the logic that he uses’. This is clearly absurd.

“his starting point is wrong his conclusions will be too.”

Are you saying that all premises have to be true in order for an argument to be valid?

Cornell, I am not expecting you to give up your philosophical and ideological associations. Far from it. Just noting that you can’t or won’t provide any evidence or bsais for Plantinga’s premises. I draw my on conclusions and your inability gives me more confidence in those.

So move on – my next question is do you accept Plantinga’s strong conclusion that there is a conflict between naturalism and science (because, he claims evolutionary science asserts evolution is guided) and, for the same reason, no conflict between theism and science?

Simple enough – not asking for justifications. Won’t respond to diversions.

In avoidance again Cornell? Come on – I have excused you of all previous questions you had difficulty with. Just one simple clear one. A Yes or No suffices.

Actually, open this up to Glenn, Sandra and Zia as well:

Do you think Plantinga’s strong conclusions are correct? Do you think naturalism (or atheism, or lack of inclusion of your god in scientific theories) is incompatible with evolutionary science? In conflict with sience itself?

I don’t expect a justification – just do you accept Plantinga’s conclusions or not?

Yes or No is OK.

Well, I tried. Ken, you’re refusing to answer and then saying that it’s the other guy refusing to answer.

That does look like a concession – your accusation about Plantinga had no basis, and not the least bit honest. You’ve refused to offer any reasons for believing it.

Now that you’ve shown that you won’t answer questions put to you, I guess you’re also saying that you don’t want me to listen to your questions. So I won’t. Entirely your choice, Ken. But as you say, “strange.”

“So you refuse to answer Glenn?”

Ken, you’re a disgrace. How old are you? This is not the way an honest, intelligent adult carries on. You know full well that you have been asked a question, and you know full well that you chose not to answer, instead returning with your own question. You were told that you needed to answer the question before you get to ask yours.

And like a spoiled child, you stomp your feet, refuse to answer, and demand that everyone else play your game. And when they don’t, you play the game of accusing them of what you yourself have done – refusing to answer!

What an anti-intellectual sham your rhetoric is.

“This is the final chance for you three.”

Ken – chances? Hilarious!

If you have decided that you want to come back to a conversation with me and supply the evidence – finally – that you are correctly representing Plantinga as claiming that mere logical possibility is sufficient for a belief to be rational, then please deliver.

If we’re talking about chances, I’ll give you one last chance (to borrow your turn of phrase). Most people would have given up waiting by now – but there it is.

“this is the last chance for you”

As I suspected. You guys are too timid – waiting for a lead from Glenn.

What a pack of wimps.

OK Sandra – how about you putting in your own words the question(s) Glenn keeps referring to. If you can I might’ve em be able to answer you. But I think you will have problems as Glenn’s questions keep changing. It’s a tactic he often seems to deploy when he is not confident or realises he can’t answer a question already on the table.

So, there you go Sandra. A little job, test, for you. No cheating. Formulate the question yourself seeing you have obviously been conscientiously following my contribution to the discussion as your emotion shows.

Come on now – should be simple. Don’t hold back. Show some initiative.

“OK Sandra – how about you putting in your own words the question(s) Glenn keeps referring to.”

I don’t get it. You won’t answer the very same question when Glenn asks – you dodge, accuse, delay and avoid. But now you want me to ask? What strange game is this?

OK Ken, here are my rules:

1) I will ask this question only once.
2) I will not accept any reversing of the burden of proof. If I ask for evidence for why you believe something, you must be the person to provide all the evidence for it.
3) I will not accept the fact that you don’t understand something as evidence. It’s not.
4) If, in your initial reply to the question, you don’t make a clear attempt to offer clear evidence for the specific claim that I am asking about, I will stop asking, and I will conclude that you can’t answer or don’t want to answer.

Here is a statement: Ken, earlier in this thread it came to light that you endorse the view that Alvin Plantinga lowers the bar for rational belief to mere logical possibility. In other words, in order for a belief to be rationally held, it only needs to be logically possible. This is the claim you made. Even if you don’t say that Plantinga states this directly, you do say that his view really boils down to this (whether he knows it or not).

Now, here is my question: Ken, can you please provide positive evidence that Plantinga’s arguments really do invoilve the above way of thinking? Very specifically, please show what Plantinga’s argument is (namely, state the premises and the conclusion), and show which part(s) involve the above assumptions about logical possibility and rationally held beliefs.

I am only offering one chance. If you don’t answer, I won’t keep trying. Thanks Ken. Your offer to me suggests that you’re willing to answer. Let’s see.

Sandra, you have listened to Glenn’s misrepresentation, not my arguments. Let me put you straight. The paragraph I endorsed were from Maarten Boudry (because it resonated with my original feelings while reading Plantinga’s argumens) which is:

“But if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred. Evolution (or gravity, plate tectonics, lightning, for that matter) could as well be directed by space aliens, Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster.”

Dennett also pointed this out during the original debate with his “Superman” story. So I am in good company.

Now notice Boudry’s use of the word “if” – you know, the one Glenn neglected in his bolding. Omit that and you change the meaning. What is being said is that without evidence, a good premise, nothing more than an argument that something is possible, then mere logical possibility opens up that can of worms. It is not saying Plantinga argued for basing strong conclusions on logical possibility alone – not at all.

In something I wrote previously (I don’t think here) I said:

“As for the logic – I think we all agree that using logical possibility as a premise does not produce a reliable conclusion. Plantinga says so himself in the book and as a qualified philosopher he surely would not argue against that. The question is, though, would he actually commit that fallacy? Would he come to a strong conclusion relying only on logical possibility?”

Therein lies Glenn’s little game. He has accused me of saying that Plantinga argued that logical possibility was sufficient for him to come to strong conclusions. One never knows with Glenn, he keeps changing the story when in the avoidance mode, but clearly I wasn’t saying that. I was not saying Plantinga was justifying reliance on logical possibility – just that without any other evidence, good premises, etc., he was in fact making that mistake. Hence the importance of justifying the premises.

I went on:

“… that is what he has done. Hence the criticism from other philosophers. It’s also what Sober did. Sure Sober was clear about the logical possibility and also clear that one couldn’t make firm conclusions. He maintained deniability to the end with his conclusion that evolutionary science was not incompatible with theism. Plenty of deniability there.

I thought it was a waste of time, just philosophical masturbation which should have been kept out of the public eye. Because no scientist was seriously saying the two were incompatible. (An evolutionary scientist arguing against theism or for atheism, or finding evolutionary science compatible with her atheism is of course not an example of the theoretical assertion Sober argued against).

But Plantiga has gone a lot further than Sober to conclude, strongly, that evolutionary science is incompatible with “naturalism” – which in this case could mean just atheist belief or lack of inclusion of his god in the science of evolution. It appears to be the latter because he claims that evolution is guided and…

“OK Sandra – how about you putting in your own words the question(s) Glenn keeps referring to.”

Ken, you’ve refused to answer that question when I ask it, but for some reason you want others to believe that you’ll suddenly change your mind and answer it when a different person asks it?

As you said earlier, “Strange.” But hey, maybe it’s personal and you just don’t want to answer questions when I ask them. 🙂 Maybe you’ll answer for someone else! Let’s find out (assuming Sandra is interested in playing this game with you).

One more thing: “It is not saying Plantinga argued for basing strong conclusions on logical possibility alone – not at all.” So what? As you know, I never attributed that claim to you. I never said that you have accused Plantinga of arguing that logical possibility alone is enough. What I attributed to you in my comment when i asked the question is: “In other words, in order for a belief to be rationally held, it only needs to be logically possible. This is the claim you made. Even if you don’t say that Plantinga states this directly, you do say that his view really boils down to this (whether he knows it or not).” There was no excuse for you to misrepresent my description of what you’ve said, and you certainly haven’t offered the evidence I requested.

There’s no you said / he said stoush. You said it, you didn’t back it up. You have now lied about what you said, you’ve also lied about what Glenn said and what I said, and you’ve chosen again not to back up your claim when asked by a second person.

This conversation is now concluded.

Sandra, why do I feel the whole tone and style of your comments has changed and now strongly resembles Glenn? Even the slips with the pronouns. And the timing -strange. Don’t say I have wasted time on a sock puppet!

Anyway, for whatever reason you also demonstrate that discussion with you is pointless.

The facts remain that Plantingi has no credible basis, premises for his strong conclusions. At least no one here has found any. And the ones that I criticise (his use of Behe and incorrect claim that science accepts a guided evolution) none of you are prepared to discuss, let alone defend. Hardly surprising as defence is really impossible in these cases.

So – given the lack of credible premises for Plantinga’s strong conclusions I believe and conclude he relies simply on logical possibility – something he acknowledges is not justifiable yet he still appears to resort to. With a good dose of deniability carefully recorded. The inability of this little group of disciples to find credible premises understandably confirms my suspicions. And shows the dangers of the theological deniability tactic.

So I agree with the respectable and intelligent philosophers Dennett and Boudry on this.

It is incredible to me that a group of self-professed intellectuals should be so timid, so unwilling to answer simple questions, to take a stand even in declaring acceptance of your heroe’s conclusions. What a pack of whimps!

I must confess satisfaction that no-one could find a credible challenge to the conclusions I have made, or those of Dennett and Boudry. And the childish personal attacks really just reinforce that satisfaction because they demonstrate inability to mount a challenge. It has also been an interesting exercise psychologically, a strange one but it has confirmed some of what I have been reading about human nature.

And what about Cornell and Zia – you guys seem to have whimped out big time. Why are you so timid?

OK Ken, this will be my last comment to you on the matter.

Here goes: You said you agree with the review of Plantinga, which uses the reducto ad absurdum. This says that an argument must be wrong, because if it’s right, then absurd consequences follow. Maarten uses this approach, saying “if the bar for rational belief is lowered to mere logical possibility, and the demand for positive evidence dropped, then no holds are barred. Evolution (or gravity, plate tectonics, lightning, for that matter) could as well be directed by space aliens, Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster.” This is meant to show that Plantinga’s argument is flawed. This is a criticism only because Plantinga’s argument is deemed to to employ the assumption described, lowering the bar for rational belief to mere logical possibility.

Glenn asked you for a quote from Plantinga where he says that the bar is this low. You replied that you don’t attribute this overt claim to Plantinga. Instead, you said: “Marteen was pointing out the consequences of relying on logical possibility alone – which I think Plantinga does.” So you do claim that Plantinga is guilty of the problematic method in question: Relying on logical possibility alone. Sure, the quote says “if” Plantinga does this, but you then confirmed it clearly: According to you, he does. Sure, he might not be aware of it and he may deny it, you say, but really this is what is going on in his arguments, according to you.

Glenn understood you and represented you fairly, saying: “You do indeed say that Plantinga relies on logical possibility alone in order for a belief to be rational. And don’t play games – it’s not up to me to reproduce all of Plantinga’s work to prove that he never says or does this. You need to show that he does.”

All clear. You stated that you attribute this method to Plantinga. Glenn said that you haven’t shown that he does this, and has been asking you to do so. Now, let’s turn to my question: “Ken, earlier in this thread it came to light that you endorse the view that Alvin Plantinga lowers the bar for rational belief to mere logical possibility. In other words, in order for a belief to be rationally held, it only needs to be logically possible. This is the claim you made. Even if you don’t say that Plantinga states this directly, you do say that his view really boils down to this (whether he knows it or not). Now, here is my question: Ken, can you please provide positive evidence that Plantinga’s arguments really do invoilve the above way of thinking? Very specifically, please show what Plantinga’s argument is (namely, state the premises and the conclusion), and show which part(s) involve the above assumptions about logical possibility and rationally held beliefs.”

All clear so far. Then your latest reply: “Therein lies Glenn’s little game. He has accused me of saying that Plantinga argued that logical possibility was sufficient for him to come to strong conclusions.”

Liar. Glenn represented you fairly.

Glenn accepted that you were allowing that Plantinga may not overtly state this: “And now you back away – saying well OK he never says that… But I think he presupposes it (or that appears to be the new version of your claim). OK then Ken, the burden is still yours. Show how his claims logical imply that logical possibility is all that’s required for a belief to be rational.” Again, Glenn is right. You said that Plantinga’s method presupposes that logical possibility is enough. You defended saying this when challenged about it.

Bloody predictable, Glenn. Just the reaction I expected from you. This childish behaviour s just so typical.

Your inability to answer simple questions shows your lack of confidence in Plantinga’s position. Even to the cowardice of being unable to endorse his conclusions.

So, this does confirm me in my belief. You guys can’t produce any credible premise that Plantinga uses. Because there aren’t any. You refuse to even get into the ones I mention. Again part of the kickback from the theological deniability clauses. May work with the faithful but doesn’t fool the person familiar with the issues.

Your inability to critique Dennett’s part of the debate or Boudry’s review is just another element confirming my conclusions.

So, as I see it Plantinga dies not have any credible premises, he actually makes a completely dishonest claim when he asserts evolutionary science currently accepts guided processes, he does in fact have nothing except logical possibility to fall back on and the understandable deniability clause creates problems for his followers when his conclusions and arguments are challenged.

Satisfies me.

[edited for profanity – Glenn]

Regarding the “liar” label – I just call it like I see it, Glenn.

Sandra (whoops, I mean Glenn!)

Ken, I hate to break this to you, but you are just a clown who promotes abject sophistry

You can’t even put together a formal syllogism on what Plantinga is arguing for, because you haven’t read his book, don’t know his argument, you don’t know logic, you don’t know philosophy, you don’t know epistemology and you are a positivist/verificationist.

You also use Dennett’s pathetic ‘superman’ analogy as if it does ANYTHING to the EAAN.

Lastly you say I’m afraid ROFL, well my 9 year old cousin told me I was a afraid to debate him on which Marvel Avenger was the strongest. He said the Hulk and then told me I was afraid to argue for anyone better. I guess this discussion of yours is on the same page. The point is I don’t take an abject closed-minded layman’s claims seriously whilst discussing EPISTEMOLOGY, and that’s what this discussion is all about EPISTEMOLOGY.

Anyways I look forward to refuting your nonsense and weak objections that will appear on your open parachute blog where village atheists think their opinions count.

For me, this will be like shooting fish in a barrel, I’ll see you around (when I have time).

” I gave you the only premises I could see”

Ken, that’s what I wanted to know. For the first time, you’ve actually stated how much of the argument you are familiar with. You actually did not produce a single premise of the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and they are not really that hard to see if you’ve read the argument. According to you, it seems, you just haven’t seen any of the premises of that argument. This is why the conversation has been so difficult here. You’ve been asking other people to give you your total understanding of an argument that you have never seen before, and yet you’ve been somewhat angrily going on about how bad that argument is and how it lacks support. See the problem?

OK, so it looks like we’re starting at the ground floor. Here are the basic premises of the EAAN:

1) Naturalism is the view that the physical universe is all there is; So it entails that there’s no God, and hence nobody had any intentions about why we’re here or what we’re here for.
2) Evolution works when natural selection picks out mutations for survival (a very short crude summary, but one everyone should accept). Natural selection is the fundamental mechanism of evolution.
3) On evolution, all parts of us, including our belief forming faculties, are a product of the above mechanism.
4) Natural selection is not “concerned” (so to speak) about our beliefs, desires, preferences etc in any sense other than whether or not those things confer an adaptive (i.e. survival-based) advantage. So natural selection does not (for example) favour a particular belief forming mechanism or tendency in principle because it forms true beliefs, but rather because it forms (or tends to form) beliefs that confer an adaptive advantage (i.e. those beliefs tend to have survival value). We are assuming here that beliefs give rise to behaviour.
5) But in fact there are more false beliefs than true beliefs that, in any given scenario, would confer an adaptive advantage.
6) Prima facie, if there are many beliefs (actually a huge number) in a given scenario that would be good for survival, only one of which is true, then the chances that a survival-prone belief will be true is very low.
7) On naturalism, recall, there is no God who created the world intending that we should engage in reason in the pursuit of truth.
8) Hence on the combination of naturalism and evolution (as those two things are describe above, let’s call this combination NE), there is no reason to think that the probability of human belief forming structures being reliable in terms of having a tendency to form true beliefs is anything other than very low.
9) But if 8) is the case, then belief in NE would give us a defeater for all of our beliefs.
10) Obviously, belief in NE is a belief.
11) Hence, if NE is true, then we have a defeater for our belief in NE.

So you see, this is certainly not an argument against evolutionary science. It is an argument that if you’re a naturalist and an evolutionist, then that would give you a defeater for your belief in naturalism and evolution. Plantinga himself is an evolutionist, but not an evolutionist.

So there you are, Ken. For the first time, you have seen the premises of Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism (or at least, my off the cuff rendition of them). Are there any premises here that you do not understand, before I go on to explain how I assess them? Please be up front about it – if you don’t understand some of these premises, now is the time to say so before I explain how strong I think they are.

PS, your previous comment certainly was hostile, with its accusation of being “bloody predictable” as well as the cussing that fell outside of the blog policy and had to be edited. I want things to remain at the tone of the comment you are now reading.

Glenn, too late – you are welcome to raise any issues on my blog but obviously open discussion here is impossible.

OK – will deal with some of those “premises” you raise in separate blog posts (some are definitions rather that premises so are irrelevant). Only because they have more general interest in misinterpretation of the nature of science and of evolutionary science specifically. I dealt with #4 when Cornell raised it – it is very naive. But maybe worth a specific post on my blog. You are welcome to contribute to any resulting discussion.

Come on Glenn – buck up. Look on this as simply transferring the discussion to a new place. A chance for new people to participate (a chance to get through to new people?). A place where everyone can particpate.

It’s not “heading off” – it’s opening up. The glass is half full, not half empty.

“Having looked at your list Glenn I have come to the conclusion you missed half of Plantinga’s argument – that science and religion have no conflict – that they are consistent.”

Plantinga has multiple arguments. The argument that I spelled out is the evolutionary argument against naturalism that Cornell was talking about earlier. This argument concludes that belief in evolution combined with naturalism provides a defeater for all beliefs, including belief in naturalism and evolution. I didn’t leave out half the argument at all. What you are now referring to (the claim that “science and religion have no conflict,” as you put it) is the wider claim of his book, Where does the conflict lie? It’s not part of the EAAN (except insofar as the EAAN does offer support for the claim that naturalism and science are not really compatible).

Ken, as I’ve already explained – you have been continually implying that Plantinga’s premises don’t support his conclusions. I kept asking you to show that you know what his premises were. You never did that, because as you now reveal, you were only aware of one claim that you took to be a premise.

I’ve never offered an assessment of the book as a whole, because like you, I haven’t read the whole thing. But he does use the EAAN in this book, as he does elsewhere. I have only ever asked you to show that you understood the argument you were criticising, and you couldn’t. The argument that I have outlined for you is the argument that Cornell raised, the evolutionary argument against naturalism. And I did not leave half of that out.

Now, if you think there’s another argument in that book in which the premises don’t support the conclusions… here we go again: Please set out the argument in question and identify its premises, and explain how they are supposed to support the conclusion, but fail to do so. It’s no good offering vague claims that an argument somewhere doesn’t work. What is the argument? Spell it out and show what’s wrong with it. If all you are saying is that you’ve heard what Plantinga’s conclusion in the book is, and you don’t agree with it, then fine. But that is not a criticism.

See, this is always what I will do. If you say that an argument has a problem, I will ask you to show that you understand the argument in question, and then to show specifically what that problem is. Letting me know that you don’t know how Plantinga’s conclusions are supported fails to do this. The remedy to this is simple: Read the book and find out (others have no requirement to do this for you). Then if you have problems with the way he defends his conclusions, say why. But continuing to make vague comments about the failures of an argument that you can’t identify really doesn’t take us far.

“I am not sure it’s at all worth dealing with his claims for guided evolution” Right, right, never actually read that argument. Just assume that it’s bad because you don’t know how it works. I’ve understood the method, I think. I’ve set out one of the arguments in this book. You say that there’s another argument that has a problem. But you haven’t read it. But it’s got a problem.

“Yes, you have outlined an “argument” instead of the stating the premises I asked for (necessary to show he doesn’t rely completely on logical possibility).”

Actually, the argument that I set out clearly does not rely on logical possibility alone. Are you sure you understood it? For example, part of the argument depends on the fact that natural selection works the way evolutionary biology says it does. Are you really willing to say that the premises of the argument I outlined rely on nothing more than logical possibility? Come now…. Surely acceptance of the mechanism of natural selection relies on more than that. Another part of the argument explains why there are more false beliefs that would be adaptive in given situations than true beliefs. Again, this doesn’t rely on logical possibility alone. And as for the other premises – it’s up to you to make the case that they depend on logical possibility alone. If you’re going to claim that, nobody else has the job of disproving it until you make your argument clear.

You know, I think maybe it’s best we leave it there – write your blog entry and discuss it with those who are interested over there.

“Nowhere am I saying that any of the premises rely on logical possibility. That would mean they weren’t premises. Logical possibility is what is being used when he doesn’t have evidence, reliable premises. Without this you always open up the argument to include the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Joe Blogs down the road.”

One can easily argue that the Flying Speghetti Monster (FSM) is logically incoherent

Please list the properties of the FSM

ty

Cornell, one can always argue anything with logic and postulating logical incoherence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is one reason for all the schisms, dogmatic debate and birth of so many sects or denominations in that religion – as in all religions.

You just point to an extra weakness with reliance on logical possibility. Not only are there an infinite number of possibilities which, to be honest, have to be included and considered. But part of the consideration is having to deal with the infinite possibilities within each logical possibility – whether we call it a god, goblin, demon, alien, human or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You have just compounded an already infinite to em with reliance on logical possibility.

Much better to base one arguments on reliable validated premises.

One person’s logical incoherence is another persons article of faith. You identify a huge problem in these “other ways of knowing.” Ignoring reality, not starting with good premises, is like constructing a building with no foundations. And philosophers of religion tend to be pretty blind to mistakes in thire construction methods thereafter.

If you want to know anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster ask your questions of one of her adherents – not me I don’t accept any gods or religions or their analogies.

Given up on Plantinga, have we?

Here, I’ll make it easy, my friend Wade has done some great work on this:

Let:
N stands for Naturalism,
E for Evolution
R stands for “our cognitive faculties are Reliable,”

Pr(R|N&E) refers to the “Probability of R given N and E,” i.e. the “Probability that (our cognitive faculties are Reliable given Naturalism and Evolution),” part of the argument is this.

1.If Pr(R|N&E) is low or inscrutable, then N&E serves as a defeater for R.
2.Pr(R|N&E) is low or inscrutable.
3.Therefore, N&E serves as a defeater for R.

If N&E serves as a defeater for “our cognitive faculties are reliable,” it also produces a defeater for any belief produced by our cognitive faculties, including the conjunction of naturalism and evolution, and since all of one’s beliefs is subject to defeat here, one can’t use any of one’s beliefs to defeat the defeater. We would therefore have an undefeated defeater for R.

Which Premise do you deny?

For those looking for some justification for the premises of the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN), see here.

Cornell, what a waste of space. It’s not hard to see that our cognitive facilities are often unreliable. One doesn’t have to get into probability arguments (with all the necesity to assume true randomness) there is not shortage of evidence. For example optical illusions. Or look at relgions – how many thousands are there? No more than one can be right and logically we would expect none to be.

On the other hand look at our scientific knowledge. The knowledge acquisition process there uses our cognitive processes but because of the interaction with reality, use of evidence, testing and validation against reality we don’t have thousands of theories about atoms, for example. We generally have strong consenus in most fields – and the changes in knowledge represent improvements as we discover more.

So in some situations our cognitive processess are abysmally bad (religions) and others extremely good (science). So good you have no problem climbing on a plane, using a computer, communicating on the internet, etc.

Oh, I forgot – you aren’t even sure you, or reality, exists- are you?

Perhaps you should try modifying yourt “probability” equations to be more realistic.

Looks like Glenn doesn’t want any commenters looking at this article so is preventing the link from working.

Never mind Just click my name – it will take you to my blog (Open Parachute) – the article is the top post.

It’s not hard to see that our cognitive facilities are often unreliable.

You’re underestimating the kind of “unreliability” of cognitive faculties the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) talks about. This is the kind of unreliability where one really can’t rely on it, e.g. pretty much any belief that came from an unreliable mind it should not be believed without independent reason to believe it, akin to a random belief generator. That is, if you knew your cognitive faculties had this kind of unreliability, you’d have to abandon knowledge on the shape of the earth, your own age, what your college textbook said, what happened yesterday, etc. because you couldn’t rely on your cognitive faculties to deliver true beliefs on such topics.

I agree Wade, I think Ken just conceded to the EAAN argument as being successful as he doesn’t the power of the defeater thesis. I also agree with Glenn on the fact that Ken doesn’t understand Plantinga’s argument and I just hope Ken would take some time and read the book.

This is possibly one of the worst statements for Ken to say in this situation:

“It’s not hard to see that our cognitive facilities are often unreliable.”

This is no different than throwing up the white flag.

I agree Wade, I think Ken just conceded to the EAAN argument as being successful as he doesn’t the power of the defeater thesis.

I think Ken just does not quite understand the argument, hence my saying, “That is, if you knew your cognitive faculties had this kind of unreliability, you’d have to abandon knowledge on the shape of the earth, your own age, what your college textbook said, what happened yesterday, etc. because you couldn’t rely on your cognitive faculties to deliver true beliefs on such topics.” Ken seems to think science can help us triumph over our cognitive imperfections, but if you can’t even rely on your cognitive faculties to know the outcome of a scientific experiment, the existence of science can’t save you. This is about cognitive faculties that you really can’t rely on.

Commenting more directly on the article:

John Weeks at the New Zealand Herald should be deeply ashamed of himself for this. He’s not, rest assured of that. But he should be. Creationism isn’t true. But this response to it is worse than simply untrue. It’s dishonest in the utmost.

I’m actually not sure it was dishonest. Don’t get me wrong; I believe the man presented highly inaccurate information (the letter clearly wasn’t racist) but it’s been my experience that human irrationality can be so great as to just not clearly see what is going on; I’ve seen this happening over and over again interacting with people on the Internet. I’m convinced that most straw men I’ve encountered are unintentional and are the result of irrationality, not malevolence.

We live in a world where there are moral nihilists (moral nihilism says nothing is morally wrong) and atheists who would sooner believe there is nothing morally wrong with torturing infants just for fun than accept theism. I’m not kidding; even famed atheist Sam Harris recognizes this. On page 198 of “The Moral Landscape” Harris says, “I must say that it has been quite disconcerting to see the caricature of the overeducated, atheistic moral nihilist regularly appearing in my inbox and on the blogs.” On highly emotional issues like atheism versus theism and creationism versus evolution, human irrationality can be great indeed.

Quoting Ken:

You don’t believe that Wade – the very fact you are communicating with me shows that you have confidence in the science that has produced your computer and the internet.

I don’t believe what? That our cognitive faculties are not reliable? Of course I don’t believe that! However, I do believe that on N&E (naturalism + evolution), the probability of R (our cognitive faculties being reliable) is low. If you want to know why one might believe that, see here, but here’s one reason mentioned in the link: Plantinga convincingly argues that naturalism implies semantic epiphenomenalism, where the semantic content of our belief (the belief that p for some proposition p, e.g. the belief that snow is white) is not causally relevant to our behavior; that semantic content is instead a useless byproduct, like smoke is to fire. If that’s true, our beliefs could be unrelated to the external world, as in dreams, and it wouldn’t matter as far as our behavior is concerned. If that’s true, then Pr(R|N&E) is low indeed.

If that truly was the case, Wade (and it’s never easy to tell), then Mr Weeks should be deeply embarrassed by his unspeakably poor skills at interpreting the world, his crippling partisanship, his hugely bungled misrepresentation of others and the shameful appearance of dishonesty that he has created. Especially in his profession.

Agreed, with the caveat that one can be highly rational in some areas (e.g. basic arithmetic) but be highly irrational in others (e.g. the highly emotionally charged topic of creation versus evolution). I’ve seen atheist philosopher Barbara Forrest present some pretty bad inaccuracies when she talks about the creation/evolution controversy, but I’m convinced that these too are the product of irrationality rather than malevolence.

Sometimes the situation is almost comical. I remember reading Del Ratzsch’s book The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate where the author (not a creationist) noted “A very typical misconstrual comes from John W. Patterson, who overlooks Morris’s key distinction, consequently mistakes Morris’s position, then uses that mistaken position as grounds for making some rather nasty accusations about the character of creationists.” I actually laughed when I read that, because it was so true, and finally a non-creationist was realizing the insanity of it all. Such irrationality is ridiculously common among people who are supposed to represent the sober scientific mainstream. If you want another example of anti-creationist irrationality, Del Ratzsch wrote an excellent book review titled, How Not to Critique Intelligent DesignTheory. The fact that the book Ratzsch reviewed was published by Oxford University Press further illustrates how dreadful the situation is.

Wade, so now you don’t believe Plantinga? You now think your cognitive processes are always reliable? That’s pretty arrogant isn’t it?

It would be, if I adhered to that position (I don’t). Remember how I described “not reliable” in the context of the evolutionary argument against naturalism?

Looks like Plantinga creates problems for you guys with his concept of “naturalism.” Why not just accept the scientific understanding of evolution and leave his ideologues out of it.

I believe in evolution, as I think Plantinga does to. But both Plantinga and I see evolution as a serious threat to the rationality of naturalism. If you disagree, feel free to address the actual argument somewhere.

(Careful with including links – haven’t you made yourself familiar with the censorship policy around here? Or is that just for me?)

I wasn’t promoting my own blog here; maybe that helped.

Sorry, Wade, you think continuation of a discussion amounts to “promotion” of a blog. Bit screwed up I would say.

Anyway, if you click on my name you can read my article on naturalism and why it is not consistent with science. The claims that science assumes “naturalism” are just not true in practice. Read my article if you don’t understand as I am not going to repeat it here.

You “believe” in evolution? OK – that’s up to you. As a scientist I don’t “believe” in evolution any more than I “believe” in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I accept evolutionary science in the same way as I accept climate science. In other words, “belief” is a strange word to use about such a well established set of facts and theories. It’s like saying I “believe” in my foot rather than knowing I have a foot.

Why not be up front and just say that evolutionary science currently doesn’t include your god (nor does any other science at the moment). That’s not an imposed requirement – it is an honest assessment of factual information -no evidence is seen for gods or goblins, and theories just don’t require them to be successful. Of course that situation could change in future if evidence for a god or goblin was found – but science would not be science if it included such agents without evidence.

That being the case – if you “believe” in or accept evolutionary science as currently understood you “believe” or accept a well supported area of knowledge which does not include gods. I think Glenn defined that as “naturalism.” Do you “believe” in “naturalism” – if not how do you accommodate that “disbelief” with a scientific knowledge which does not include gods? I can see this happening only be compartmentalisation – acceptance of what is currently a godless scientific understanding while at the same tin believing in the existence if a god. Simple enough – lots of people do it without any problems.

Or do you think, as Plantinga seems to, that evolutionary science actually includes gods? If so, why? That’s just so far out of touch with the actual science.

But Wade, evolutionary science, all other science and calculus must be “naturalist” according to Glenn’s definition. While science doesn’t include gods or goblins or similar it is “naturalist.”

That being the case how can you say acceptance of evolutionary science and calculus makes “belief” in naturalism (ie “belief” there are no gods) irrational? Where is the specific conflict? Surely until science does find evidence and include gods everything is hunky dory.

(I have an equal opportunity approach to this blog – I won’t follow links while Glenn censors my links. You will have to explain yourself just as I do).

Simple question. Surely a simple answer is possible rather than diversions through probability issues (especially on non-era com issues).

“all other science and calculus must be “naturalist” according to Glenn’s definition”

Correction: Naturalism, as that term is being used here (and in philosophy generally), affirms that there is no God and that the physical universe is all that exists. Calculus does not include those claims. Nor does any other science that I am aware of.

For a brief (wiki) background on what naturalism is, here’s the Wikipedia article on it. Of course Wikipedia is never going to be comprehensive, but the article looks OK. It describes what people here have been referring to when we refer to naturalism.

Sorry Glenn, my equal opportunity policy prevents me from following your links. You will have to explain here.

Wade – substitute T for N and you get exactly the same result but it applies to theism instead of “naturalism”. There is no clear reason there why that should be prevented. In other words you have to give empirical reasons not naive probability relationships applied to non random situations. Reasons why T should be treated different,y to N. There are all sorts of buried assumptions there which should be honestly expressed. And that is why I am pushing you.

Surely if you are claiming “our cognitive faculties are unreliable” (several assumptions are included here which I assert are false) they are that way whatever ones belief. After all if evolution does not require goblins or gods, then it doesn’t matter what individuals call themselves. That’s like saying that believers and non-believers have different cognitive process quite independent of the facts of evolution.

And why use the term “naturalism” instead of atheism? I assume the important thing is non-belief or belief in gods. If it is something else please state that.

Pointless including links – I have stated my equal opportunity policy. What I want is clear explanation and justification.

Ken’s away for now.