@secularoutpostwp.production.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/...biological evolution in our book, i...
TRANSCRIPT
@SecularOutpost 1
WHAT BEST EXPLAINS REALITY? NATURALISM OR THEISM September 21, 2016
Jeffery Jay Lowder Twitter: @SecularOutpost
Website: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/ Rebuttal to “I Don’t Have Faith to be an Atheist”: http://independent.academia.edu/JeffLowder/
@SecularOutpost
5
Conclusion
1 4
Intro
First Contention
Third Contention
3
Second Contention
2
3
@SecularOutpost
5
Conclusion
4
Intro
First Contention
Third Contention
3
Second Contention
2 1
4
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism
The physical exists and, IF the mental exists, the physical explains why anything mental exists.
Naturalism
“Source Physicalism”
(aka “Naturalism”)
Materialism
“Eliminative physicalism” (aka “materialism”) is a special version of physicalism: it denies that the mental exists at all.
5
@SecularOutpost
Supernaturalism
The mental exists and, IF the physical exists, the mental explains why anything physical exists. Personal Supernaturalism adds on the claim that one or more personal mental entities exist, and IF the physical world exists, it created for a purpose. Theism adds on the claim that there is just one mental entity, God, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect.
Super-Naturalism
“Eliminative idealism” (not shown in diagram) is a special version of source idealism: it denies that the physical exists at all.
“Source Idealism”
(aka “Super- naturalism”)
Personal Supernaturalism
Theism
6
@SecularOutpost
Otherism
Naturalism and supernaturalism are both false. Hybridism (aka “panpsychism”) adds on the claim that reality consists of a single ‘substance’ that is both physical and mental. TBD-ism adds on the claim that some TBD ‘substance’ is the ultimate cause of both the mental and the
Otherism
“Otherism”
7
@SecularOutpost
Three Contentions
1) The best explanation is the explanation with the overall greatest balance of intrinsic probability and accuracy.
2) Naturalism is an intrinsically more probable explanation than theism.
3) Naturalism is a more accurate explanation than theism.
8
@SecularOutpost
5
Conclusion
4
Intro
First Contention
Third Contention
3
Second Contention
1 2
9
@SecularOutpost
First Contention: Intrinsic Probability
• Let H be a “hypothesis,” i.e., a proposition we do not know with certainty to be true and we do not know with certainty to be false.
• “Intrinsic probability of H” = the probability of H independent of the evidence for or against H. – Intrinsic probability is determined by the content of H, e.g.:
• H’s modesty; and • H’s coherence.
10
@SecularOutpost
First Contention: Accuracy
• Let H be a “hypothesis,” i.e., a proposition we do not know with certainty to be true and we do not know with certainty to be false.
• “Intrinsic probability of H” = the probability of H independent of the evidence for or against H. – Intrinsic probability is determined by the content of H, e.g.:
• H’s modesty; and • H’s coherence.
• “Accuracy of H” = the degree to which H’s predictions correspond to reality, i.e., “How well do H’s predictions match up with reality?”
11
@SecularOutpost
First Contention: Accuracy
Jar #1 Jar #2
12
@SecularOutpost
First Contention: Accuracy
Jar #1 Jar #2
Evidence for #1
Evidence for #2
Not Evidence for #1 or #2
13
@SecularOutpost
First Contention: Overall / Final Probability Bayes’ Theorem specifies the relationship between intrinsic probability, accuracy, and overall or final probability.
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑑𝑜 𝑏𝑖 𝐻 𝑑𝑏𝑔𝑑𝑖 𝑑𝑔𝑏𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑑𝑜 𝑏𝑖 ~𝐻 𝑑𝑏𝑔𝑑𝑖 𝑑𝑔𝑏𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝐸 ∝
𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑑𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑏𝑒 𝑝𝑑𝑜𝑏𝑝𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑜 𝐻𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑑𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑏𝑒 𝑝𝑑𝑜𝑏𝑝𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑜 ~𝐻 ×
𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑜 𝐸 𝑑𝑏𝑔𝑑𝑖 𝐻𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑜 𝐸 𝑑𝑏𝑔𝑑𝑖 ~𝐻
It follows from Bayes’ Theorem that H will have a high final probability on the evidence B and E:
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑑𝑜 𝑏𝑖 𝐻 𝑑𝑏𝑔𝑑𝑖 𝑑𝑔𝑏𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝐸 > 0.5
just in case it has a greater overall balance of prior probability and explanatory power than do its alternatives collectively:
𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑑𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑏𝑒 𝑝𝑑𝑜𝑏𝑝𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑜 𝐻 × 𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑜 𝐸 𝑑𝑏𝑔𝑑𝑖 𝐻 > 𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑑𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑏𝑒 𝑝𝑑𝑜𝑏𝑝𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑜 ~𝐻 × 𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑑𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑜𝑜 𝐸 𝑑𝑏𝑔𝑑𝑖 ~𝐻
14
@SecularOutpost
5
Conclusion
4
Intro
First Contention
Third Contention
Second Contention
1 2 3
15
@SecularOutpost
Second Contention: Modesty
• “Modesty of H” = measure of how little H asserts – The less H says, the more modest H is. – The more H says, the less modest H is.
16
@SecularOutpost
Second Contention: Coherence • “Coherence of H” = measure how well the parts of H fit together. • Example:
– H1 = “All crows are black.” • H1 (Part 1) = “All non-Asian crows are black” • H1 (Part 2) = “All Asian crows are black.” • Part 1 supports Part 2.
– H2 = “All Asian crows are white” and “All non-Asian crows are white.” • H2 (Part 1) = “All non-Asian crows are white” • H2 (Part 2) = “All Asian crows are black.” • Part 1 counts against Part 2.
– H1 is more coherent than H2.
17
@SecularOutpost
Second Contention: Pr(|N|) = Pr(|S|) > Pr(|O|)
Naturalis
m Otherism
Super
naturalis
m
Personal
Supernaturalism Thei
sm
18
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
Scorecard
19
@SecularOutpost
5
Conclusion
Intro
First Contention
Third Contention
Second Contention
1 2 3 4
20
@SecularOutpost
3.1. Physical Reality Cosmology
Physical Reality
21
@SecularOutpost
3.1. Physical Reality
22
@SecularOutpost
3.1. Physical Reality
23
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
3. Accuracy ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.1. Physical Reality ↑ ↓
Scorecard
24
@SecularOutpost
3.2. Success of Science
Science Success of science
Evidence to be Explained Naturalism Theism
3.2.1. % of scientific explanations which do NOT appeal to the supernatural
↑↑ ↓↓
25
@SecularOutpost
3.2. Success of Science
Science Success of science
Evidence to be Explained Naturalism Theism
3.2.1. % of scientific explanations which do NOT appeal to the supernatural
↑↑ ↓↓
3.2.2. Natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations, but no supernatural explanations replacing natural explanations
↑ ↓
26
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
3. Accuracy ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.1. Physical Reality ↑ ↓ 3.2. Success of science ↑↑ ↓↓
Scorecard
27
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution
Biology Evolution
28
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution
Biology Evolution
The Evidence to be Explained: BONES • Biogeography • Organs (vestigial) • Natural Selection • Embryology • Stratified fossil record
29
@SecularOutpost
3.3.1. Biogeography
Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D. Professor of Biology, University of Chicago Author, Why Evolution Is True
“The biogeographic evidence for evolution is now so powerful that I have never seen a creationist book, article, or lecture that has tried to refute it.”
Dr Geisler and I tried to discredit biological evolution in our book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, but we said nothing about biogeography.
Frank Turek, Ph.D. Co-Author, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
30
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution is the Best Explanation
Evidence to be Explained Biological Evolution Special Creation 3.3.1. Biogeography ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.3.2. Organs (vestigial) ↑↑ ↓↓
31
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution is the Best Explanation
Evidence to be Explained Biological Evolution Special Creation 3.3.1. Biogeography ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.3.2. Organs (vestigial) ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3.3. Natural selection ↑↑ ↓↓
32
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution is the Best Explanation
Evidence to be Explained Biological Evolution Special Creation 3.3.1. Biogeography ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.3.2. Organs (vestigial) ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3.3. Natural selection ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3.4. Embryology ↑↑ ↓↓
33
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution is the Best Explanation
Evidence to be Explained Biological Evolution Special Creation 3.3.1. Biogeography ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.3.2. Organs (vestigial) ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3.3. Natural selection ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3.4. Embryology ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3.5. Stratified fossil record ↑↑ ↓↓
34
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution
35
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution
36
@SecularOutpost
3.3. Biological Evolution
37
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
3. Accuracy ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.1. Physical Reality ↑ ↓ 3.2. Success of science ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3. Biological evolution ↑↑ ↓↓
Scorecard
38
@SecularOutpost
3.4. Pain and Pleasure
Sentient Life
Pain and Pleasure
39
@SecularOutpost
3.4. Pain and Pleasure
Evidence to be Explained Naturalism Theism 3.4.1. Moral agents experiencing biologically useful pain and pleasure
↑↑ ↓↓
40
@SecularOutpost
Evidence to be Explained Naturalism Theism 3.4.1. Moral agents experiencing biologically useful pain and pleasure
↑↑ ↓↓
3.4.2. Sentient beings experiencing biologically useful pain and pleasure
↑ ↓
3.4. Pain and Pleasure
41
@SecularOutpost
Evidence to be Explained Naturalism Theism 3.4.1. Moral agents experiencing biologically useful pain and pleasure
↑↑ ↓↓
3.4.2. Sentient beings experiencing biologically useful pain and pleasure
↑ ↓
3.4.3. Sentient beings experiencing pain and pleasure not known to be useful.
↑↑ ↓↓
3.4. Pain and Pleasure
42
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
3. Accuracy ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.1. Physical Reality ↑ ↓ 3.2. Success of science ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3. Biological evolution ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.4. Pain and Pleasure ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓
Scorecard
43
@SecularOutpost
3.5. Mind-Brain Dependence
Sentience
Mind-Brain Dependence
44
@SecularOutpost
3.5. Evidence of Mind-Brain Dependency
Evidence to be Explained Physicalism Dualism 3.5.1. Brain stimulation ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.5.2. Brain injuries ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.5.3. Injuries to specific brain regions destroy specific mental capacities
↑↑ ↓↓
3.5.4. Animal mental capacity directly correlated with animal brain complexity
↑↑ ↓↓
3.5.5. In all animals, development of mental capacities correlated with development of neurons in the brain.
↑↑ ↓↓
45
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
3. Accuracy ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.1. Physical Reality ↑ ↓ 3.2. Success of science ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3. Biological evolution ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.4. Pain and Pleasure ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.5. Mind-Brain Dependence ↑↑ ↓↓
Scorecard
46
@SecularOutpost
3.6. Empathy and Apathy
(Diagram of brain regions removed pending permission from copyright owner to publish on the Internet)
47
@SecularOutpost
Evidence to be Explained Naturalism Theism 3.6.1. Neurological basis of moral handicaps
↑↑ ↓↓
3.6.2. Moral handicaps not due to “freely” chosen actions of human beings
↑↑↑ ↓↓↓
3.6.3. Moral handicaps which increase risk of harm to others
↑↑↑ ↓↓↓
3.6. Moral Handicaps
48
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
3. Accuracy ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.1. Physical Reality ↑ ↓ 3.2. Success of science ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3. Biological evolution ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.4. Pain and Pleasure ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.5. Mind-Brain Dependence ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.6. Empathy and Apathy ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓
Scorecard
49
@SecularOutpost
3.7. Nonresistant Nonbelief
Nonresistant Nonbelief
Divine Hiddenness
50
@SecularOutpost
Naturalism Theism 2. Intrinsic Probability ↑↑ ↓↓
2.1. Modesty ↑↑ ↓↓ 2.2. Coherence ↑↑ ↓↓
3. Accuracy ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.1. Physical Reality ↑ ↓ 3.2. Success of science ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.3. Biological evolution ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.4. Pain and Pleasure ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.5. Mind-Brain Dependence ↑↑ ↓↓ 3.6. Moral Handicaps ↑↑↑ ↓↓↓ 3.7. Empathy and Apathy ↑↑ ↓↓
Scorecard
51
@SecularOutpost
Conclusion
Intro
First Contention
Third Contention
Second Contention
1 2 3 4 5
52