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

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han
2 comments
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here.&qu
Post a Comment
Read more