tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post5392223999808402271..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Thurow on Cognitive Science and Religious Belief (Part Three)John Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-24353599741110772122011-05-19T20:34:31.526+01:002011-05-19T20:34:31.526+01:00Michael,
I haven't discussed the EAAN here. I...Michael,<br /><br />I haven't discussed the EAAN here. It did feature in one of my posts on skeptical theism, but only as a springboard toward a different argument. Also, parts of the discussion of Griffiths and Wilkins on debunking arguments touch upon related issues, including those you mention.<br /><br />I personally find it hard to believe that evolutionary processes would not track truth in certain cognitive domains, e.g. motion detection and shape recognition. I also agree with Griffiths and Wilkins that you can build a bridge from these basic cognitive domains to scientific truths (and use these to debug other intuitive belief-forming faculties). What Cadfan says about the EAAN sounds plausible to me as well, given what little I have read about it.<br /><br />El Ninio,<br /><br />If people in general have an interest in me doing something on the EAAN, I'd be willing to do it. <br /><br />Is anyone else interested in this?John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-80409821113306591802011-05-19T15:13:38.222+01:002011-05-19T15:13:38.222+01:00Can't we just dismiss the entire EAAN because ...Can't we just dismiss the entire EAAN because Plantinga did Bayes on the proposition that a randomly generated belief and a randomly generated desire would be selectively advantageous, but his theory is actually about the likelihood of evolutionary processes creating cognitive and perceptive faculties capable of mapping with moderate accuracy onto reality? He should have done Bayes on the latter, but he didn't, so nothing to see here, lets all move on?<br /><br />I'm not sure that the Principle of Charity requires rewriting 20 years of some guy's professional career.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-2952689859844455182011-05-19T06:32:47.358+01:002011-05-19T06:32:47.358+01:00Give me an E, give me two A's, give me an N. W...Give me an E, give me two A's, give me an N. What does that spell? EAAN<br /><br />Seriously now, you really should start a series on EAAN. It's an intriguing argument.<br /><br />Just to tease you, here's a link to Stephen Law's take on it:<br />http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/latest-version-eaan-paper-for-comments.htmlel niniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166380491437509870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-26442402780101071372011-05-18T19:10:45.205+01:002011-05-18T19:10:45.205+01:00Hey John, I'm enjoying this series. Have you e...Hey John, I'm enjoying this series. Have you ever done an analysis of Plantinga's EAAN?<br />I have to say I find it very persuasive, but one qualm I would have is that it seems to me to undermine the reliability of our intuitions rather than our cognitive faculties as a whole. In particular, the use of science would seem to me to be a good way of sifting out the kinds of beliefs that may arise out of survival-prioritising belief systems. What do you think?Michael Baldwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09496687749283004816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-49413396616058680552011-05-18T16:09:57.859+01:002011-05-18T16:09:57.859+01:00Well, sure something like Rodney Stark's econo...Well, sure something like Rodney Stark's economic explanation for the growth in certain kinds of religious beliefs, could be used as the basis for a debunking argument. Evolutionary debunking arguments are just a subclass of causal debunking arguments. Certain causal pathways towards beliefs might not be truth-tracking, and that can always be pointed out.<br /><br />However, you would still probably run into the kind of objection Thurow makes: you're not engaging with the actual reasons people offer for holding the beliefs that they do. For example, I doubt that many believers think they hold strong evangelical beliefs because that kind of belief satisfies their economic needs. They'll probably appeal to other grounds.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-77930229448119772492011-05-18T14:34:23.737+01:002011-05-18T14:34:23.737+01:00Thanks for the link.
It was interesting, but not ...Thanks for the link.<br /><br />It was interesting, but not precisely what I was thinking about. We know the actual history of many major world religions. There's no need to be all philosophical and argue from only a posited diversity and cultural distribution of religion. Even in the past 200 years, religious belief and practice has changed enormously. To give just two examples, the Christian take on what behavior is appropriate on Sunday has shifted enormously as economic needs changed, and the Christian take on human nature has changed dramatically to the point where what was humanism has gone from heresy to near universal acceptance.<br /><br />That was more what I was thinking about.<br /><br />But thanks for the link. I did read it and enjoy it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-38088662805523518372011-05-18T09:54:22.122+01:002011-05-18T09:54:22.122+01:00The blogger Thrasymachus (the Polemical Medic) off...The blogger Thrasymachus (the Polemical Medic) offers a kind of historical debunking argument. He does so as part of an analysis of John Loftus's Outsider Test for Faith. Well worth reading:<br /><br /><a href="http://thepolemicalmedic.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/on-the-failure-of-the-outsider-test-for-faith/" rel="nofollow">On the Failure of the Outsider Test</a>John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-3571253617071251142011-05-18T01:01:02.273+01:002011-05-18T01:01:02.273+01:00Is there a historical form of the debunking argume...Is there a historical form of the debunking argument? Maybe something that addresses specific doctrinal beliefs, and argues that the historical process by which these beliefs originated and spread is not one that is likely to track truth?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-6455984236444810672011-05-17T21:38:55.368+01:002011-05-17T21:38:55.368+01:00The conclusion is my summary of Thurow. I agree th...The conclusion is my summary of Thurow. I agree that the argument has some weight, and may even prove quite persuasive against some people. Actually, I think Thurow would agree with that too. He does say in the article that anyone who is made aware of the HADD would need to have some independent line of support for their beliefs (either evidentialist or Plantingan in nature). He would probably just add that the effectiveness of the argument is much reduced from what might have originally been expected: one can't avoid engaging with other more standard religious arguments.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-83006433900408411892011-05-17T18:03:52.519+01:002011-05-17T18:03:52.519+01:00Do you we really need to abandon the argument comp...Do you we really need to abandon the argument completely? It seems like if our HADD really does produce unreliable beliefs about Gods in general then we have some reason to be suspicious of religious truth claims. It doesn't mean we get to avoid engaging with their arguments but I don't think it's right to say this argument has no weight at all.Aditohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02106865378195027880noreply@blogger.com