From Evo Psych to a Denial of Xnty to a Denial of Evo Psych

The following is my attempt both to represent one of the arguments presented in the fifth chapter of Plantinga's book and then to represent the general form of that argument in two ways. I think the general form reveals that the argument is problematic. In particular, the argument form winds up undermining itself in various ways. Read the arguments below and try to fill in the blanks in such a way that the argument winds up undermining evolutionary psychology. 

Argument from EP to denial of various Christian claim

Particular Example: Morality
1. According to some theories of EP, morality is selected for because of its contribution to cooperation between individuals or groups.
2. Given 1, there is no reason to think that our moral beliefs track objective reality
3. Hence, according to some theories of EP, there is no reason to think that there is such a thing as objective morality
4. Most religions, and Xnty in particular, imply that there is such a thing as objective morality
5. Hence, some theories of EP are incompatible with most religions, and Xnty in particular.

General Form of Arguments
1. According to some theories of EP, _______ is selected for because of its contribution to _______________ or is a side-effect of ______________.
2. Given 1, there is no reason to think that our _________ beliefs track objective reality
3. Hence, according to some theories of EP, there is no reason to think that there is such a thing as __________________
4. Most religions, and Xnty in particular, imply that there is such a thing as ___________
5. Hence, some theories of EP are incompatible with most religions, and Xnty in particular.

More General Form of Arguments
1. According to some theories of EP, _______ is selected for because of its contribution to _______________ or is a side-effect of ______________.
2. Given 1, there is no reason to think that our _________ beliefs track objective reality
3. Hence, according to some theories of EP, there is no reason to think that there is such a thing as __________________
4. But science in general and evolutionary biology in particular, imply that there is such a thing as ___________
5. Hence, some theories of EP are incompatible with science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lakatos and Thagard: Demarcation Problem

Lakatos-Falsification and Methodology Naïve Falsificationism (NF): Rules of Acceptance:  if T is falsifiable, the T is scientific. Rules of Falsification:  If some observation statement conflicts with T, then T is falsified. Sophisticated Falsificationsim (SF):  Rules of Acceptance:  T is scientific only if T has more empirical evidence than some other T* Rule of falsification:  T is falsified iff some other theory T* has greater predictive and explanatory power than T and is confirmed to some degree. Theoretically Progressive:  T is TP if T purports to take in more empirical data than some other theory T*. Empirically Progressive:  T is EP if T is TP and some of the excess empirical data is confirmed to some degree. Progressive Problemshift:  both TP and EP If a Problemshift is TP, then it is scientific, if not TP, then it is pseudoscientific So, some theory T is  pseudoscientific  if T is an alter...
Read more

Diverse Viewpoints: Should we be open?

There are lots of different factors in not only theory acceptance but also in accepting and maintaining various beliefs. One is acquiring relevant information about the topic. Another is acquiring and assessing different interpretation of that information. Another is comparing the theory or belief with other theories and other beliefs to see if they fit together well. In some cases, embracing a new idea or theory requires changes in one’s existing beliefs, and sometimes those changes seem too drastic. If embracing theory T means I have to change my belief that 2+2=4, then I ain’t embracing T. That seems perfectly rational. What theories should we really seriously consider? By that I mean, give them serious thought, and be open to changing our minds. Are there ideas, views, theories, that we should not give any serious attention to, even if they have defenders?  We mentioned the Alien-laser theory of drunk driving, but that is not defended by anyone as far as I know.  ...
Read more

Defeaters

Undercutting : where  E  is evidence for  H , an undercutting defeater is evidence which undermines the evidential connection between E and  H .  Rebutting : is evidence which prevents  E  from justifying belief in  H  by supporting not- H  in a more direct way.  In general: a. Moving from believing that p to believing that not p requires a rebutting defeater b. Moving from believing that p to not believing that p requires an undercutting defeater Note the difference between the scope of the 'not' in a. and the scope of the 'not' in b. In a. one believes something, namely, not p. In b. one does not believe something. The 'not' in b. is negating the believing, whereas the 'not' in a. is negating the thing that is believed.  Ok, given all of that, you should be able to explain the relevance of the following cases that Plantinga brings up in Chapter 6. Are they examples of undercutting or rebutting defe...
Read more