Balancing Faith and Science

Welll that seems to be a typical Lewis argument - a shallow argument from incredulity.The validity of a logical argument is the reason why it is reliable.Therefore the validity is directly tied to the usefulness.

quote:

---

No doubt our ability to perceive logical truths is useful. The point is, how did this ability develop in the first place? Only through a fluke--say, a mutation. Therefore, logic has no ground.

---

Well there's a clear example of the genetic fallacy. The validity of logic does not depend on how we developed the facility to recognise it. Which raises the question of how good our ability to recognise logical validity is - obviously not good enough for you to actually notice that fallacy. Don't you think that a clear idea of what it is that we are supposed to be accounting for is actually necessary to form a valid argument ?It also does not even attempt to construct a reasonable history of the development of logic. So as well as being fallacious it is a shallow strawman as well.

quote:

---

The validity of logic depends on its ground. There is no ground, unless there is some Absolute which grounds it.

---

Logic is grounded in semantics. It doesn't need your Absolute.

quote:

---

A biological development is not a logical ground.

---

Nobody is suggesting that it is. That's just a strawman.Look, if you want to discuss, this please try to discuss it seriously.

"rational intuition" ? What do you mean ? Isn't intuition non-rational ? And weren't we talking about logic ? Why are you changing the subject ? And you'd better get a clearer ides of the concept of "basis" as it applies to these issues because until you do you are going to keep on making the same mistake. Is it your "rational intuiton" that causes you to beleive Lewis' arguments ?I also have to comment that you are meant to be producing Lewis's arguments and I am criticising them. I regard your insistence that I should produce an argument instad as conceding the point that Lewis' arguments - which you found so convincing - are indefensible.

Saying that "rational intuition" is the basis for these things is not very helpful. Doesn't 2 + 2 = 4 come from simple counting ? And if you want to argue that we don't have to determine the truth of these inductively I would like you to explain on what basis - according to your beliefs - we claim to know these things.The basis for logic must be our reason for thinking it to be valid. In other words it is not a genetic issue - i.e. based on how we gained the capacity (and if it were there is a lot more to the story than a single "fluke").And what possible reason can you have for saying that logic is "groundless" ? Are you just saying that you can't think of a ground ?And if you want more specific criticisms I suggest that you make more specific arguments. If you don't understand the terminology I have bene using to make my criticisms then say so - but up to now they have been quite specific enough givem the vagueness of the arguments they are applied to.

I've got a maths background (BSc in Mathematics and Computer Science)I've thought a little more about "2 + 2 = 4"Now I do beleive that some basic counting ability is innate. But IMHO addition is learnt. In my day, at least, it was initially learnt by rote - but without that or some other training I would think that it would have to be learnt by experience. It certainly isn't obvious that it is naturally intuitive (i.e. innate knowledge) - I would say that it becomes intuitive because it is a basic example of something learnt at an early age and heavily used. And widely used as an example of a simple and undeniable truth.Which, of course, only confirms that the question of what is meant by "rational intuition" can't be sorted out by giving a few examples. I have no way to tell whether "2 + 2= 4" is a valid example or whether using it as an example was a mistake !

quote:

---

By 'intuition' I was thinking of that quality of our thought when we say of some deductive conclusion, "This has to be. No doubt about it. There's no way it cannot be"--whether we are talking about a proposition expressed in words or mathematically. No measuring or testing required.

---

So you are talking about informal evaluation of arguments ?
Formal evaluation for logical validity is certainly not something I would describe as "intuition".But why would a reasonable ability at evaluating arguments not be useful in evolutionary terms ? And why is the (limited) reliability of that faculty a problem for naturalism ?

Firstly it is widely accepted that evolution can produce a remarkable range of physical adaptions despite not being desiged to do so. That it could also produce mental adaptions is a reasonable inference and thus the question of whether the process is "designed" to produce a particular result is something of a red herring.Note also that Lewis does not even attempt to offer any explanation for the origin of reasoning capabilities. Any potential designer must posess reasoning capabilities, and if reasoning capabiities must be the result of design (even at one or more removes) we hit an infinite regress. The situation, then is already weighted in Lewis' behaviour since he avoids answering the larger question placing whatever explanation he has (if indeed he has one !) beyond criticism.The second paragraph is simply an arrgument from personal incredulity. However it would be equally valid - or rather equally invalid - to reject Lewis' idea of a creator on the same grounds. Thus Lewis' argument boils down to a purely subjective assessment. Moreover there is no sign that his subjective assessment of the possibility of reasoning capabilities evolving (despite the fact that they clearly are advantageous) is based on anything like an adequate assessment of the issue. Indeed there is no doubt that similar arguments could be made for any complex adaption - even if reasonable lines of evolutiuon are well-known to the experts they could be hard, indeed, for the uninformed layman - like Lewis - to explain (the evolution of the human eye is a common example). Thus Lewis' argument against an evolutionary explanation carries little weight.Thus what Lewis' argument comes down to is no more than his personal bias in favour of a belief in God. He presents no positive argument other than God's (assumed) capability and willingness to produce the result we see. Yet that is precisely what he must do - even if his argument against evolution were valid it still relies on the assumption that that there are no other alternatives to God - an assumption which is certainly questionable and would be very difficult to justify.

To say that it is not a complex adaption is, I think, ot beg the question. Why is it not ?To describe it as "percieving the truth" is also inaccurate - what it does is to (unreliably) distinguish good arguments from bad. If it were a matter of "percieving the truth" then there would be no need to examine the validity of the argument - only the conclusion.But then again perhaps you do not understand this point. Because, you see, when I point out that Lewis' argument is invalid by statign that it is an argument from impersonal incredulity you take it as an argument for the differnet conclusion. But that is obviously wrong - to say that an argument is invalid is simply to say that it has no value in SUPPORTING the conclusion it argued for. The invalidity of the argument is not closely related to the truth of the conclusion (a valid argument with false premises may have a false conclusion - while an invalid argument may have a true conclusion).Now, how reasoning evolved is certainly a difficult - and interesting - problem. And one that is not solved yet (although we have some useful evidence).But that does not make Lewis' argument valid, useful or interesting.Nor is the trivial point about induction raised in your latest quote. Induction falls short of full logical validity but it is still a highly reliable form of reasoning when properly employed. If Lewis disagrees then he is rejecting all our science and technology. If he agrees then his point is trivial and fails to say anything of relevance to this discussion.

So what you say is that since I notice the glaring errors in Lewis' arguments I must have a "closed mind". You, on the other hand presumably have an "open mind" because you reject my criticisms of Lewis' arguments out of hand.I think you will find that in normal usage fairly evaluating arguments on their merits is taken to be a sign of an "open mind" while rejecting arguments because their conclusions are unpalatable is regarded as symptomatic of a "closed mind".

As I stated pointing out that an argument has gaping holes in it is not arguing FOR an alternative conclusion - even if I happen to believe the alternative. Rather, it points out that the argument is not a valid basis for beleiving it's conclusion.If you really don't understand this than I have to suggest that this group is not for you. This is a really basic point for rational discussion.

The fact is that when I pointed out that Lewis' argument against an evolutionary origin of human reasoning ability was invalid, you attempted to paint it as an argument for an evolutionary aorigin of our reasoning ability.Perhaps you would like to explain your reasons for doing so if you knew that it would not be a valid argument.Your assessment of the argument from personal increduility is in error. An argument from personal incredulity is simply where one possibility is rejected because it is beleived to be effectively impossible - with no sound basis for that conclusion. As I pointed out I could equally argyue against Lewis' preferred alternative on my own personal incredulity. Thus - as I pointed out - the argument is simply a subjective assessment and thus invalid.Your demand to produce an alternative might be appropriate if you were willing to meet the same criterion yourself. But you are not - and Lewis argumewnt does not include any such attempt. Your one-sided demand then simply serves to imbalance the situation in your favour.It is absolutely false to say that I have engaged in ad hominem attacks. Rather I have pointed out major and serious errors in Lewis' arguments which you have failed to address. Equally your arguments have betrayed a basic failure to understand how rational argument works. Are you admitting that you know better ? If so how do you explain your errors ?

I simply noted thata) your assertions indicated a failure to understand a basic point of rational argumentand
b) suggested that if you really did fail to understand rational argument that this group was not for you.Neither of these points is an ad hominem attack.

Well perhaps then you can accept that I am justifiably annoyed that you engaged in an obvious misrepresentationm of my argument (Message 106) and then made an invalid attempt to justify that misrepresentation despite being corrected (Message 111).Do you accept the point I made in Message 113 ? If you do understand that can you explain why you twice tried to paint my argument as an argument FOR the evolution of human reasoning ability, when all I did point out that Lewis' argument to the contrary was invalid ?

SO you are insulted by the mere suggestion that your very basic error represented a genuine failure to understand. Perhaps you can suggest an explanation which you don't find insulting.ALso I must point out that I did not say that YOU were engaged in an argument from personal incredulity. That is how I characterised Lewis' argument on the simple grounds that that is what it wasAnd I have no idea what this means:

quote:

---

You assumed it because you're all set and ready to jump on some dumb creationist which is what you think I am.

​

Your whole attitude is full of steretypical assumptions.

---

What "stereotypical assumptiosn are you talking about ? What do you think you are ? The head of some fanatical Lewis-worshipping ccult which will hunt me down for daring to point out the worthlessness of your idol's arguments ? I really can't see what this has to do with the points I have made - although I suspect that it may have a lot to do with your inability to defend Lewis' arguments.