Skip to main content

Improving Alvin Plantinga's argument

These vague meanderings need a lot of polishing, but I'm spitting them out here before I forget them.

His criticism of naturalism is, at the end of the day, a criticism of a certain kind of materialism: one that proposes to explain (or is it justify???!) the reliability of the faculties used by scientific theorizers by saying that these faculties are reliable because they have, over the course of time, enhanced the survivability of their possessors.

I think that the type of functionalism that has appeared in other discussions (and which I associate with utilitarianism) comes into this picture as well: a functionalist approach to evolution looks at life processes instrumentally (hence the association I have made between it and utilitarianism).  "Enhacing survival" (of a gene), for example, is a functionalist explanation of why certain phenotypes endure in a population.

I think functionalism is problematic in a manner analogous to the problems I find with utilitarianism. Maybe that analogy can be helpful here.

The alternative to functionalism that I envision is analogous to virtue theory (thinking here of both Nietzsche and of Aristotle) just as functionalism is to utilitarianism.  Evolution is like habituation, the development of a practice that is per se desirable to the species that consists of individuals capable of habituation.

Give that humans seeks truth (and prescinding for the moment, if I may, from adding that I recognize a supra-material dimension to human nature), then we have an activity that cannot be accounted for adequately by one who is thinking solely in functionalist terms.  That is, the desirability of truth: what Nagle might call, what it's like to be a truth seeker.

Perhaps Plantinga's argument becomes clearly cogent once we direct it toward an understanding of evolution that is thoroughly informed by functionalism.  But perhaps the thrust of the argument can be dodged by a version of evolutionary theory that is not a pure distillation of functionalism.  While the alternative theory might be materialistic (or might not be), it would open the door to theism inasmuch as it might allow the intrinsically desirability of truth to come into play, for that would point toward God as the Summum Bonum.

Like I said, this is pretty fuzzy, but there might be something of value here: gotta work on it more.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more