The evolutionary argument against naturalism
Alvin Plantinga (1932), professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, is a leading theistic philosopher and opponent of evolution. He has proposed an intriguing, and specious—yet non-the-less intriguing—argument against evolution. It is intriguing for several reasons: First, because on the face of it, it is plausible. Second because it is typical of a whole class of specious arguments. Finally, because it highlights the difference between how scientists and philosophers approach a problem.
The argument runs as follows: The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact, he’d have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It’s as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world (original emphasis). In other words, if people in fact evolved, they could not trust their cognitive faculties to give them the truth and hence, do science. He goes on to argue that it is only possible to trust our cognitive faculties if people are created in God’s image.
It is amusing that unbelievers argue the opposite; namely that the existence of a God means science is impossible since he/she/it could override the rules of nature at will and there would be no reason to assume constant laws. Both are correct to this extent: Absolute knowledge is impossible,[1] independent of God’s existence. But back to Plantinga’s argument; it hinges on the concept of truth, or equivalently, reliability. But what is truth? A profound question—or a meaningless one. The difference between profound and meaningless is often vanishingly small.
At one level, the idea of truth is simple: Does the testimony of the person on the witness stand agree with what happened? Or perhaps the simpler question: Does the testimony agree with what the person thinks happened? The second is a less stringent requirement. But from this simple concept, the grand metaphysics concept of TRUTH ™ is generated. Whatever this grand metaphysical concept is, science is not concerned with it. Is it TRUTH ™ that colds are caused by viruses? The reductionist, at least if he believes in string theory, would say no. Colds, like all other phenomena, are caused by how strings vibrate in eleven dimensions. Viruses are just a wimpy low-energy approximation to the real TRUTH ™.
In science, we build models for how the universe works, which usually have a limited range of validity. Think of classical mechanics which is only valid for velocities much less than the speed of light. Is classical mechanics the TRUTH ™? No, certainly no, it fails in various places. But it is certainly useful. Science is a natural extension of the model building the unconscious mind does all the time, which is necessary for us to survive in a hostile world. The surprising thing is not that beings who evolved created science, but rather, that they did not do it sooner. Plantinga’s problem is that he does not understand what science is or how it works—seeking effective models rather than the TRUTH ™, whatever that may be. He should have known better, since by the Duhem-Quine thesis, no model can be falsified. Arguing that the current models have deficiencies is never enough. You have to provide better ones with more predicative power.
In the same manner that Plantinga’s argument relies on the grand metaphysics concept of TRUTH ™, many arguments in philosophy rely on similar word definitions. A prime example is the ontological agreement for God’s existence. First proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109), the argument goes as follows: Define God as the greatest possible being we can conceive. If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Note that his argument hinges on the definition of greatest. My daughter believes that anything, no matter how great, can be made greater by being pink. Thus the greatest being is pink. If I define non-existence as being greater than existence,[2] the ontological argument becomes an argument for God’s nonexistence. Evil is another word that is frequently made into a grand metaphysical concept, EVIL™, and used to justify various philosophical positions. The concept of actions I do not like is then taken a step further and personified in the concept of the devil.
While our concepts and word definitions may reflect reality, they do not constrain it. In the end, models founded on observation take precedence over philosophical arguments based on word definitions and phenomenologically unconstrained speculations. If such philosophical arguments disagree with scientific models, so much the worse for them. Thor showing up for Thursday afternoon tea at the Empress Hotel would make all arguments regarding his existence moot[3]. One observation is worth a thousand philosophical arguments.
Additional posts in this series will appear most Friday afternoons at 3:30 pm Vancouver time. To receive a reminder follow me on Twitter: @musquod.
[1] See The Limits of Science.
[2] See Ecclesiastes chapter 4 for why this definition may be reasonable.
[3] You can tell it is Thor because he would be carrying a large hammer and one of the goats pulling his chariot would be limping.
Tags: Duhem-Quine, evolution, Philosophy of science, Plantinga, truth
Plantinga’s argument suffers from one vital flaw: evolution is not “unguided”, simply it is that it is not guided by a supreme intelligence. It is however, guided by the fundamental law of survival of the “fittest”, meaning the best adapted for that environment. Thus creatures that have evolved the faculties to enable rational enquiry, especially in the realm of the laws of nature, come equipped with a brain that has been very good for tens of millions of years for avoiding fast moving predators at awkward angles, catching falling fruit, jumping from trees, extrapolating consequences of mechanical action on the environment. Thus in a way you can say our brains are well adapted to understanding classical mechanics, because classical mechanics is what happens! Just so our eyes are adapted well to visible light, because that it the predominant and most useful wavelength range to our survival (we don’t pollinate flowers so have no need of UV, and nature would have a hard time and even less reason to develop x- or gamma-ray eyes).
Thus his argument should really be whether we can trust our faculties within the realm of philosophy and metaphysics: how can we trust religious beliefs? I would say there is all the most reason to trust our ability to extrapolate physical data from our senses and by of course, consensus. Plantinga’s ‘dream world’ would require a remarkably improbable permutation of everyone coming to the same wrong conclusions about physical reality.
Interesting statement in the beginning of the 3rd paragraph:
“unbelievers argue the opposite; the existence of a God means science is impossible since he/she/it could override the rules of nature at will and there would be no reason to assume constant laws”
So the unbelievers think even though God may not exist, the physical laws must exist? So they believe physical laws have existed for eternity?
Once again, we see that there is no neutral ground in matters of belief.
I also found this paragraph at least incomplete.
Usually believers agree that the laws exist because god provided them and that is
close to the argument of intelligent design, in the end. god still leaves a few possible
spaces (for believers) where he can act, but the fundamental laws (as everything in the
minds of these people) comes from him. Non-believers are usually blaimed for “believing in the
constancy of the laws. I suspect as what happens if the world were deterministic (what, well,
this is a quantum diary). So, Non-believers are claimed as believers in this reality..
It is true that the constancy of the fundamental laws like the standard model could be discussed,
however, science will still get there…
Anyway, interesting the conclusion.. There is no neutral ground…
Cheers,
Denis
I read that as the usual science claim – (too much) magic would make science impossible.
Physical laws are an observation, and that they have existed “for eternity” means simply that they have existed (in some form) as long as time has.
Further, inflation makes an “eternity” mundane, see Susskind’s recent paper:
“If a multiversal citizen knows these things he will bet that he is too late to detect any evidence of the root.”
In other words, a putative beginning is effectively not relevant.
Darwin was personally tormented by evolution. Planck spent years trying to save classical mechanics (some say he even succeeded). Evidence and philosophy should be the horse and cart respectively. Gleeful enthusiasm for a theory should arouse suspicion. This is a good heuristic for sifting theories, less powerful than parsimony yes, but still a good one.
Evolution + Creationism = Nature Knowledge Continuum = most likely Future Science :
• Cited from “Knowledge is the Edge of Science” – http://bit.ly/pOSGBt and derived from Nature Knowledge Theory (NKT), Science consistent with Evolution considering both of them are within domain of Scientific Knowledge. But, Science not consistent with Creationism considering the last is within “Knowledgeable Science”, a term applied for domain where Knowledge becoming subject, alive and having consciousness contrary with Science which is just an object with no consciousness.
• But, viewed from NKT, the most important is, both Science (representing Data and Information) and Knowledge (representing also Wisdom) are within Nature Knowledge continuum. The paradigm used here is : “The Universe or the Nature Knowledge is the source and center of Consciousness” rather than “Mind Brain or Human Being is the source and center of Consciousness as derived from DIKW model”
• In this circumstance we tend to use the first paradigm, considering by using it, we able to reconstruct the epistemology as well as ontology of current Universe up to time of Big Bang through Top-Down mechanism approach by Inverted Paradigm Method or “Reverse engineering” applied to “Universe Trilogy” a term we coined to Nature Knowledge, Energy and Matter as an entity of fabrics of the Universe
• Brief overview ref of this short narration at http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/comprehensive-guide-to-future-science-environment-decomposing-kno – (“Comprehensive Guide to Future Science Environment : Decomposing Knowledge with Inverted Paradigm Method”)
• Note on one of our statement : …. ……k – constant approaches 0.0 such as the ecosystem of Higgs Boson, will make all scientific efforts practically a “mission impossible” . We dare to say, almost impossible to any scientific effort goes beyond “our illusion dream land” with “k” = 1.0 to leap into “absolute dream land” with “k” less than 1.0 or practically = 0.0 considering that “…… space-time is only the notion of human being in the universe to accommodate the existence of Matter and Energy…..
As far as I can understand the Plantinga argument goes deeper. I know it under the name of “Haldane argument”. There is a kind of self-contradiction in the materialism. If everything can be reduced to laws of physics and chemistry, than our statements “this is true” “I agree with your argument” etc can be reduced to physics and biology of our brains. My statement: “you are right” tells only about a configuration of atoms in my brain and not about a proof of a Pythagoras theorem (if this was a subject of our conversation). The same intuition is behind Dostoevsky question: “If there is no god, then how am I a captain?”
Sound like an argument that Mathematica cannot do math since it is based on the physical mechanisms in the computer. The foundations of math are rather different that science but I think the counter argument is the same. There are no grand metaphysical principles like TRUTH and yes everything, for a materialist, can be reduced to a question of statements about the configuration of the physical brain. That is not a problem any more than it is a problem that pictures are painted with paint not reality. Similarly, the physical mechanism (or the not physical mechanism if it is spirit) underlying our thoughts are largely disconnected from the thoughts themselves. The question of whether or not a computer could emulate a brain is, in the final analysis, an empirical question.
Even if there is a god, HOW is one a captain?
“The question of whether or not a computer could emulate a brain is, in the final analysis, an empirical question.”
I’m always amazed by the lack of agreement with this seemingly obvious (in the light of modern neurology & technology) statement. I’ve had people throw Descartes at me as if he was a current professor somewhere.
This old chestnut again. Biologists merely observe that species evolve factful enough senses: “we couldn’t survive if we just stood our ground as a big predator ran towards us and thought, “Well, that might just be an illusion.””
More generally, science works by similar selection.
Also the rest of the article is based in philosophy instead of science. A few examples:
“Absolute knowledge is impossible,”
Another old chestnut.
- Noether’s theorem to some small degree relates theories to absolute facts of conservation and symmetries.
- We have robust no go theorems in cases like “no cloning” or “no ftl (or physics crashes)”.
- As Sean Carroll notes, “The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood“.
- We should probably add that realism is incorporated in all types of mechanics as “constrained reaction to constrained action”, as action-reaction of classical mechanics and observation- observables of quantum mechanics.
The existence of absolutes are of course separate from the existence of uncertainty in observation. Which leads us to this:
“by the Duhem-Quine thesis, no model can be falsified.”
To certify that experiments work and gives repeatable results is part of the process leading up to testing of theories and models. Since we observe that it works often enough, and often enough leads to rejection of theories – which is probably the science equivalent to “falsification” – we can probably reject such a hypothesis in case it can be made formal (doubtful).
In sum, science works, including biology – philosophy doesn’t.
“science works, philosophy doesn’t”
Science works if the model works and the equipment works – no, neutrinos probably don’t go faster than light.
Philosophy works also, at least realism does. My two year old is as good an epistemologist as any scientist, unless she is imagining a playmate. She wakes up,, affirms reality as different from sleep, affirms her own existence and ego , mine too, and the physical objects around her. She knows she”s loved and she has a concept of justice and other non-material realities, so she is no materialist. But when cetaceans and primates develop civilizations, art, music, literature, math, science and large hadron colliders , she no doubt will be a materialist.