Is Naturalism Irrational?

In his 1993 book, Warrant and Proper Function, Dr. Alvin Plantinga argued that we as humans cannot truly possess knowledge unless our cognitive faculties function properly, but there is little reason to believe that naturalism can produce proper functioning cognitive faculties.

In the final chapter of the book, titled, "Is Naturalism Irrational?", Plantinga presents his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), a summary of which can be found here, where he argues that it is irrational to believe in both naturalism and evolution. This is because the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, would be fairly low since they were produced by processes which were not aimed at producing true beliefs, but at survival and propagation. This defeater for the reliability of our faculties provides a defeater for belief in naturalism itself.

At the 2010 Evangelical Philosophical Society's Apologetics Conference, Dr. Angus Menuge spoke on the subject, "Reason Cannot be Located in a Materialist World" where he gave a number of arguments against naturalism's ability to meet the requirements for reasoning to take place. Wintery Knight has an excellent post with links to Dr. Menuge's paper, a copy of his PowerPoint presentation, and a link to where an mp3 of the presentation can be purchased.

For some time now, I have been compiling a list of things which atheists must believe, can't believe, or can't account for, all of which comprise an argument that atheism is irrational. (I realize that not all atheists are naturalists, but for my current purposes, I will use the terms atheist, naturalist, and materialist interchangeably.)

The atheist must believe...

• that many things we sense to exist, such as the mind, are illusions
• that strictly natural processes, including random mutations, can account for the appearance of design in nature
• that complex specified information can arise from matter and does not require an intelligent cause
• that life can come from non-life
• that the objective moral values and duties we perceive are merely human conventions
• that there is, therefore, nothing objectively wrong with murder, rape, child molestation, genocide, racism, etc.
• that some form of determinism is true
• that something can come from absolutely nothing or that matter and energy are eternal

The atheist cannot believe in...

• free will
• the existence of any ultimate meaning or purpose to life
• the existence of objective moral values or duties
• the existence of any moral facts
• the inherent dignity or value human beings

The atheist cannot account for...

• human reasoning
• human knowledge
• universal laws of logic
• the uniformity of nature
• the fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life
• why anything at all exists rather than nothing
• the truth of anything

Note that nothing in this last section is meant to imply that atheists can't reason, use logic, or prove the truth of propositions. He simply cannot provide any grounding for these things unless he borrows tools from the theist's toolbox.

Finally, the atheist must believe in naturalism even though there are defeaters for the belief in naturalism itself.

Empty!

Mark 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Image courtesy of Dan Lietha

William Lane Craig Debates Michael Tooley on the Existence of God

William Lane Craig is considered by many to be the world's foremost Christian apologist alive today. That claim is quite understandable, once you have seen or heard him debate.

Some of my family members attended his debate last night against Michael Tooley at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte and I've gotten some good feedback so far.

For those of you interested in audio and video of Craig's debates, here is an extensive list with links to audio, video, and transcripts where available. It is grouped by topic rather than date, and I don't know if it's a comprehensive list, but there is enough here to keep anyone busy for quite a long time!

If you are interested in links to other debates and commentary, Wintery Knight has a great list here. His list includes debates between such notables as N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan, Michael Shermer and Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer, etc.

A Simple Case For Intelligent Design

Atom, commenting at William Dembski's blog uncommondescent, made the following case for Intelligent Design. I have paraphrased it slightly, but you can find the original in the comment section here.

1) It is a given that complex, integrated, functional machinery exists.

2) There are two logically possible causes for 1: A) intelligence, and B) non-intelligent forces of nature and chance.

3) Non-intelligent causes have not yet been empirically demonstrated to produce complex, integrated, functional machinery. This has only been assumed (see just-so stories).

4) Intelligent causes have been, and can be, empirically demonstrated to cause such machines. (Computers, cars, aircraft, etc.)

5) Therefore, intelligence is currently the best and only explanation for 1. Until another causal class can be empirically demonstrated as a viable cause, Intelligent Design is the default position.

Pi Day

If you have been to Google today, you know that today is Pi Day. Today is 3/14 and Pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, starts with 3.14.

Pi is a special number in that it is irrational (it cannot be written as a ratio of whole numbers) and transcendental (it cannot be expressed as the result of any finite series of mathematical equations). Pi, written π, has been calculated to over a trillion digits, but if it could be written down, it would fill the entire universe.

To see one million digits of Pi, go here.

It's interesting to search for strings of digits in this list. So far, I've found the 6-digit birthdays of most of the people in my immediate family.

God, If You're Real...

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

Courtesy of Dan Lietha

Who is Really Fair and Balanced?

This chart from johnny dollar's place shows the percentage of the Massachusetts Senate candidates' speeches which were aired by CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News on the night of the election.

Would You Consider Abortion in These Four Situations?

Today is the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade supreme court decision legalizing abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 45 million legal abortions were performed between 1973 and 2005.

Would you consider abortion in the following situations?

1. There is a preacher and wife who are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she is pregnant with her 15th. They are living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. The first is blind, the second is dead. The third is deaf and the fourth has TB. The mother finds she is pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you recommend abortion?

3. A man abused a 13 year old girl and she is now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She is not married. Her fiancee is not the father of the baby, and he is very upset. Would you recommend an abortion?

If you have answered “yes” to any of these situations...

In the first case you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists of the 18th century.

In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven.

In the third case you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great gospel singer.

In the fourth case you would have recommended the murder of Jesus Christ.

From http://earnestlycontending.com/maranatha/?p=604

A question for agnostics

Coined by English biologist Thomas Huxley in 1860, the word agnostic has taken several forms over the years. Agnosticism typically addresses the knowledge of God's existence, but most agnostics don't stop there. They often take a position on the existence of objective truth as well. One agnostic will say, "I don't know, but you don't know either," or, "I don't know, and I can't know. And, neither can anyone else." Others say, "I don't know now, but maybe some day there will be more evidence and I'll know then." So I have a question for anyone who is an agnostic. How do you know that agnosticism is correct? If you say, "Well, I don't know," then, why are you agnostic if you have no basis for it? Or maybe you say, "In the absence of any convincing evidence, agnosticism is the best position to take." But how do you know that agnosticism is the best position to take in the absence of any convincing evidence? Where's your evidence for that? It seems that, no matter how you slice it, agnosticism is a claim to knowledge.

This Church Says Torture Is Wrong

The First Parish Unitarian Church I pass on my way to work has taken down the "Room For Different Beliefs" sign and replaced it with this one.

The sign implies, of course, that there is such a thing as right and wrong, that moral values really do exist, and do so objectively, that is, independent of anyone's personal opinion. Otherwise, if this were simply the expression of a preference, what would be the point of the sign?

You might say, "To create a consensus among a majority who will then be able to put a stop to the practice." However, if this is just an opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, what's the point? On what basis should one opinion outweigh any other opinion? This sign makes sense only if it expresses a view that transcends personal preference.

However, the church has already indicated that they have room for my beliefs. And, I just might believe torture is right. And since they have room for the belief that it's wrong to say torture is wrong, they're in a dilemma. It's a good thing that they have room for the belief that it's OK to hold contradictory beliefs!

Fake or Foto

From time to time, Autodesk, the makers of AutoCAD^®, Maya^®, and Inventor^®, posts a series of images along with a challenge. Which ones are are real photos and which ones are CG?

Here is the series above:
http://www.autodesk.com/eng/etc/fakeorfoto/quiz.html

Here is the original series:
http://www.autodesk.com/eng/etc/fakeorfoto/v1/quiz.html

Here is the current series:
http://area.autodesk.com/index.php/fakeorfoto/challenge

Gourmet Foods?

Somewhere in Fitchburg, Massachusetts

I enjoy taking pictures of humorous signs, especially when they aren't intended to be humorous, like these. I'm tempted to offer a free meal to anyone who can identify the exact location of these dumpsters, but I suspect you wouldn't want it! I'll give you this hint. You can find the dumpsters somewhere along Route 12 in Fitchburg, Mass. They're in the parking lot of an establishment that is apparently short on advertising space. I know I get hungry every time I drive by!

Hoarding Condition

From boston.com

Car towed after cargo blocks windows

An elderly Sandwich man's car, which was so full of trash and other random items that the rear and side windows and half of the windshield were completely covered, was impounded in Yarmouth yesterday morning, police said. Police said that Theodore Clements was pulled over in his Nissan Stanza when police noticed the blocked windows. Searching the car, they found an assortment of items, including a cast iron chain and hook, a bike, hockey helmets, and empty food boxes. Clements told police he had a diagnosed hoarding condition. The car, which was unregistered and had not been inspected since March 2005, was towed, police said, and Clements was issued a citation and taken home to a senior housing complex.

Hoarding condition. Yeah, yeah, that's it. I have a hoarding condition. A biological explanation for my behavior! I'm not a pack rat. I have a medical condition.

Let's close the prisons and provide all criminals with medical treatment instead. Someone out there has a murder condition. Actually, someone out there has a stupid condition.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

I was listening to the radio and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Literally. A behavioral psychologist had given a name to what years ago used to be called "rebellion." It is now called "Oppositional Defiant Disorder."

This is from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry:

All children are oppositional from time to time, particularly when tired, hungry, stressed or upset. They may argue, talk back, disobey, and defy parents, teachers, and other adults. Oppositional behavior is often a normal part of development for two to three year olds and early adolescents. However, openly uncooperative and hostile behavior becomes a serious concern when it is so frequent and consistent that it stands out when compared with other children of the same age and developmental level and when it affects the child's social, family, and academic life.

In children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), there is an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that seriously interferes with the youngster's day to day functioning.

Symptoms of ODD may include:

frequent temper tantrums

excessive arguing with adults

active defiance and refusal to comply with adult requests and rules

deliberate attempts to annoy or upset people

blaming others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior

often being touchy or easily annoyed by others

frequent anger and resentment

mean and hateful talking when upset

seeking revenge

The symptoms are usually seen in multiple settings, but may be more noticeable at home or at school. Five to fifteen percent of all school‑age children have ODD. The causes of ODD are unknown...

So now there is another medical explanation for one more type of bad behavior. This is what happens when we assume that we are nothing but molecules in motion. No one is responsible for his or her behavior. And if one of these kids commits a crime......well, we certainly can't punish someone for being sick, can we?

Room for different beliefs?

I found this banner outside a Unitarian Universalist church I pass on my way to work.

The sign is a logical contradiction. I'm tempted to stop by and ask them if they have room for beliefs that don't have room for different beliefs!

"We are a welcoming faith, " says Rev. Jim Eller, a UU Pastor. "We do not have one set of beliefs....We welcome agnostics, atheists, humanists, pagans, Buddhists, Christians and theists. All are welcome."

Oh? Would they welcome Nazis? Would they welcome racists? Child abusers? Biblical Fundamentalists? No, especially not Biblical Fundamentalists.

Sadly, this sign is typical of today's thinking. Or, should I say non-thinking?

Another Paradox

I found this in an article at everything2.com.

All adjectives may be divided into two types:
self-descriptive and non-self-descriptive.

Here are some self-descriptive adjectives:

English
short
polysyllabic

Here are some non-self-descriptive adjectives:

German
long
monosyllabic

So, to which type does the following adjective belong?

non-self-descriptive

If the word is really non-self-descriptive, then it applies to itself. But that would make it self-descriptive. And if it's self-descriptive, then it is describing itself as being non-self-descriptive.

Paradoxes

I love puzzles, brainteasers, logic riddles, and paradoxes.

Here's an interesting paradox. How many of the following five statements are false?

1. Three of these five statements are false.
2. 2 + 2 = 5
3. 3 +1 = 4
4. 4 x 2 = 8
5. 6 - 1 = 4

Statements 2 and 5 are clearly false. But what about statement 1? If it's true, there are three false statements. But where is the 3rd false statement? If it's false, then there are three false statements, which makes it true, which brings the number of false statement back to two. But, if there are only two false statements, then statement 1 is also false...

Subvert The Dominant Paradigm

You may have seen this bumper sticker in your travels. I found this one in the parking lot where I work, though I have no idea whose it is. If I find out, I'll probably ask them about it. The message is a call to rebellion against the current mode of thinking, whatever it happens to be. Maybe some people display the bumper sticker to be funny or to raise eyebrows, but I'm sure some consider it a serious expression of their own thinking.

My question to them is what will you do when the dominant paradigm becomes subverting the dominant paradigm?

Maybe it already is.

This reminds me of a quote by G.K. Chesterton in his book, "Orthodoxy." It's a keen observation about modern man, summed up brilliantly in the last sentence.

‘But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.'

--G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1909

"Safe, Legal, and Rare"

When Hillary Clinton says she wants abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare," it is considered to be a "softening" of her rhetoric. I think it's a disingenuous attempt to appeal to anyone with half a conscience by throwing in the oh-so-reasonable term "rare." Who could disagree with that?

I think she would be satisfied with legal. She certainly doesn't want it to be safe. At least not for the baby. And I doubt she wants it to be rare.

But, put her comments in another context, say, that of slavery. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln, in a bid to appease southerners had said, “I'm personally opposed to slavery, but I don't think the government should interfere with a slave-owner's right to choose. Let's keep slavery safe, legal, and rare.”

Abortion is every bit as evil as slavery ever was.

Hillary isn't safe. Her dealings aren't legal. And, unfortunately, she isn't rare.

Pop vs. Soda

I grew up calling soft drinks "pop." But when I moved to New England, I realized that hardly anyone knew what pop was. Instead, virtually everyone calls it "soda," and a few even call it "tonic." Here's a fascinating map that shows, county by county, the most common term for soft drinks.



Click the map to enlarge it.