@secularoutpostwp.production.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/...biological evolution in our book, i...

@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