Why an atheist, naturalist should NOT trust their thoughts to be true.

[Tercon]

He doesn't explain why naturalism doesn't support, being able to trust our faculties.
The 'truth' of a belief is measured by it's predictive and explanatory power.

The truth can only come from belief, because the truth and belief are both the product of a believing mind and not a unbelieving mind.

 

[Caroljeen]

The truth can only come from belief, because the truth and belief are both the product of a believing mind and not a unbelieving mind.

Shouldn't belief come from truth?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Shouldn't belief come from truth?

Belief should come from evidence and argument - we don't always have the luxury of knowing that our beliefs are true.

 

[Tercon]

Shouldn't belief come from truth?

Actually knowledge of the truth comes from belief, because belief is necessary and must occur before the truth is made known.

 

[Tercon]

Belief should come from evidence and argument - we don't always have the luxury of knowing that our beliefs are true.

Actually if belief is what makes the truth known in reality, then in reality belief is the luxury that makes it known. Belief is a gift from God.

 

[Temujin]

Actually if belief is what makes the truth known in reality, then in reality belief is the luxury that makes it known. Belief is a gift from God.

Sadly, belief is not what makes truth known. Belief makes you think that you know the truth. Only reality determines whether it is actually true.

 

[Tercon]

Sadly, belief is not what makes truth known. Belief makes you think that you know the truth. Only reality determines whether it is actually true.

Then it is a good thing that belief is the only thing capable of making reality known as well.

 

[Temujin]

Then it is a good thing that belief is the only thing capable of making reality known as well.

It isn't capable of determining what is reality and what is falsehood. By itself, belief is worthless.

 

[Whatsisface]

Then it is a good thing that belief is the only thing capable of making reality known as well.

Belief doesn't do that.

 

[Tercon]

It isn't capable of determining what is reality and what is falsehood. By itself, belief is worthless.

Belief doesn't do that.

You are both projecting your unbelief by conflating belief and unbelief. If can't know the truth or reality without belief, then how is it possible that "belief is worthless" in making the truth and reality known to you?

 

[Whatsisface]

Shouldn't belief come from truth?

Ideally yes. But we can believe something even though we don't have all the information, based on our intuitions and background knowledge etc.

The trick is to realise that that's what we're doing and said beliefs might be wrong.

 

[Whatsisface]

You are both projecting your unbelief by conflating belief and unbelief. If can't know the truth or reality without belief, then how is it possible that "belief is worthless" in making the truth and reality known to you?

Because beliefs can be wrong. Are everyone's beliefs correct beliefs?

 

[Caroljeen]

I'm happy to talk about that when we've dealt with the subject in hand, being, you saying ... "We can trust what is going on in our minds not because of intrinsic rules in the universe but because we are made in the image of our Creator" ...

and that the reality is that people get things wrong all too often, meaning that people can't trust what's going on in their minds which counts against their being made in the image of their creator as you say.

I think I will answer your question actually. Yes, we would see so many contradictory beliefs if evolution were true because although evolution has given us the ability of abstract thought, it can't select for particular abstract thoughts like logical principles. To all too many of us an understanding of these logical principles doesn't come naturally, we have to learn them. This is in part why so many come to different conclusions about the world.

The answer to my questions "Would there be so many contradictory beliefs if our minds were evolved instead of created? Would we still long for meaning and purpose? Would we think of God?" The answers are "no". If the human mind evolved rather than was created by God, there would be less contradictory beliefs, we would not long for meaning or purpose. God would not be a thought that would cross our minds?

We would truly be a product of our environment. Our mental faculties would be unreliable because evolution and naturalism don't modify beliefs in the direction of what is true about our world but only in the direction of modifying in the direction of greater adaptiveness. All morals would be relative and determined for us. There would be no illusion of free will to choose.

If evolution of the brain without an immaterial mind were true, then why would we need abstract thoughts if we are creatures of our environment? Why would our brains evolve that way?

 

[Caroljeen]

Belief should come from evidence and argument - we don't always have the luxury of knowing that our beliefs are true.

Evidence for a belief should be enough.

 

[Whatsisface]

The answer to my questions "Would there be so many contradictory beliefs if our minds were evolved instead of created? Would we still long for meaning and purpose? Would we think of God?" The answers are "no". If the human mind evolved rather than was created by God, there would be less contradictory beliefs, we would not long for meaning or purpose. God would not be a thought that would cross our minds?

We would truly be a product of our environment. Our mental faculties would be unreliable because evolution and naturalism don't modify beliefs in the direction of what is true about our world but only in the direction of modifying in the direction of greater adaptiveness. All morals would be relative and determined for us. There would be no illusion of free will to choose.

If evolution of the brain without an immaterial mind were true, then why would we need abstract thoughts if we are creatures of our environment? Why would our brains evolve that way?

You are still not addressing my main point.

You said ... "We can trust what is going on in our minds not because of intrinsic rules in the universe but because we are made in the image of our Creator"

Please explain how if we can trust our thoughts as we are made in the image of our creator, so many people get so much wrong, meaning so many people can't trust their thoughts.

 

[docphin5]

You are still not addressing my main point.

You said ... "We can trust what is going on in our minds not because of intrinsic rules in the universe but because we are made in the image of our Creator"

Please explain how if we can trust our thoughts as we are made in the image of our creator, so many people get so much wrong, meaning so many people can't trust their thoughts.

Per Plato, virtue is needed to see clearly.

As goodness stands in the intelligible realm to intelligence and the things we know,
so the sun stands in the visible realm to sight and the things we see.
— The Republic VI (508c)[1]: 171 

In other words, Plato is saying that the true nature of reality cannot be comprehended by the ordinary senses. Thus, we should make use of the mind rather than the sensory organs to better understand the higher truths of the universe. The mind, much like sight, requires a "third thing" to function properly, and that third thing is Plato's idea of goodness. He likens a mind without goodness to sight without light; one cannot operate at peak efficiency without the other. (Wikipedia, “Analogy of the sun”)​

 

[Whatsisface]

Per Plato, virtue is needed to see clearly.

In other words, Plato is saying that the true nature of reality cannot be comprehended by the ordinary senses. Thus, we should make use of the mind rather than the sensory organs to better understand the higher truths of the universe. The mind, much like sight, requires a "third thing" to function properly, and that third thing is Plato's idea of goodness. He likens a mind without goodness to sight without light; one cannot operate at peak efficiency without the other. (Wikipedia, “Analogy of the sun”)​

So, are you saying that only virtuous people can see things clearly? If so, that's going to need a lot of support. More than you've given here.

 

[Caroljeen]

We don't know the mechanism of thought, except we do know a lot of the necessary conditions for verbalization and consciousness. How those conditions produce verbalization is unclear, and how evolution might have produced them in turn is a matter of speculation. So I could hand wave and postulate, and give supportive evidence pro- and con, but honestly as knowledge it would be weak.

Thanks for being honest.

Hm. Depends what exactly you mean by that. It would be hard to imagine how evolution could give one a desire for a specific theology or metaphysic

or simply a God in general. a reason that things exist.

I think it is possible to imagine how evolution might favor creatures able to express and feel a necessity for justice, and goodness.

Why wouldn't evolution favor aggressiveness and strength? Might makes right? Like we see in much of the animals.

Somre people argue that robust evolutionary theories for ideas cannot exist because one can't explain experiential phenomena purely in terms of objective phenomena, but that isn't an argument that it can't happen (at all): it's an argument about the limits of being able to conceptualise things verbally. One could, in theory, model it, but one (according to that theory) would not understand how a successful model worked.

Are you talking about the formation of ideas? I find it difficult to grasp how a nonrational process can lead to formation of a rational creature.

 

[Caroljeen]

As I'm sure you're aware, neither your opinion, nor your personal increduilty, constitute proof.

If you listened to that short video you might of noticed what Plantiga gave as proof...good sense which is something evolutionists who are naturalists don't have.

Indeed, you introduced the idea that the universe arrived at the laws... another assumption.

Are you putting the unguided natural laws before the creation of the universe? How would that work when there was nothing before the Universe came into existence?

So - what is the proof?
This premise is crucial to Plantinga's argument, remember.

No, I don't remember. Refresh my memory, please.

Did I state a syllogism?

Again, you assume that natural laws require a god, based solely on your opinion and incredulity.

Based solely on what is known about laws. They don't materialize out of nothing.

If you can't prove this, no argument that assumes this as a premise, will be taken seriously.
And nor should it.

Which premise are you talking about?

 

[Algor]

Thanks for being honest.

or simply a God in general. a reason that things exist.

Hm. I need to think on that.

Why wouldn't evolution favor aggressiveness and strength? Might makes right? Like we see in much of the animals.

In some situations individual aggression is favored. But in others, co-operative behaviors. In a long lived animal like a human, with multigenerational and extended families, pro-social behavior would be also be favored, like we see with elephants, horses, crows and parrots.

Are you talking about the formation of ideas? I find it difficult to grasp how a nonrational process can lead to formation of a rational creature.

Why not? I mean, non-rational processes can form ordered arrays, and sorting mechanisms....If they can form life, they can form ordered things. To make a rational being, you have to form a being that can order part of itself. If non-order can make order, then order can make more order.

That sounds like a bad lyric, but do you get what I mean?