Comments on: Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

By: LANCE

LANCE — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:44:11 +0000

Pillspot.org. Canadian Health&Care.No prescription online pharmacy.Special Internet Prices.Pillspot.org. Vitamins@buy.online” rel=”nofollow”>.…

Categories: Womens Health.Mens Health.Anxiety/Sleep Aid.Pain Relief.Mental HealthAnti-allergic/Asthma.Antibiotics.Weight Loss.Antidiabetic.Blood Pressure/Heart.Antiviral.Eye Care.Stomach.Vitamins/Herbal Supplements.Antidepressants.Stop SmokingSkin…

By: Kylie Batt

Kylie Batt — Wed, 19 May 2010 05:02:11 +0000

Какая интересная мысль…..

These are a few examples of evolutionary arguments against naturalism (EAAN)…..

By: Kylie Batt

Kylie Batt — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:14:04 +0000

Все куллл смотреть ))))всем…

These are a few examples of evolutionary arguments against naturalism (EAAN)…..

By: Alex Gordon

Alex Gordon — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:19:13 +0000

И что же?…

These are a few examples of evolutionary arguments against naturalism (EAAN)…..

By: Антон Павлович

Антон Павлович — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:23:45 +0000

Прошу прощения, что вмешался… Я здесь недавно. Но мне очень близка эта тема. Могу помочь с ответом. Пишите в PM….

These are a few examples of evolutionary arguments against naturalism (EAAN)…..

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:02:13 +0000

I don’t know that this is a very good argument. If per se there was no God, does that mean we can’t be sure that 1+1=2? If millions of people, all applying their intelligence to the problem of 1+1 continually come up with 2, does that prove God? Wouldn’t someone, even by accident have stumbled across the flaw in the thinking that 1+1=2, if there was a flaw? I mean, we know there are flaws in human cognition. Sometimes commonly held beliefs are refuted by new information. If someone someday finds a flaw in 1+1=2, we would have to accept this new information, but until that time it is useful to assume 1+1=2 even if we haven’t formed any conclusions about God.

By: DAM10N

DAM10N — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:40:55 +0000

Technical details aside, while “[t]here is not a [logically] necessary connection between belief and survival behavior” and indeed “many false beliefs can lead to survival behavior” is it not obvious that true beliefs (e.g. that lion might well eat me” are far more *likely* to do so when combined with an instinct for survival?

By: DAM10N

DAM10N — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:36:38 +0000

BTW - If you are into the technical stuff, I’d recommend Fitelson and Sober. Their refutation of the EAAN is tightly reasoned and mathematically precise.

By: DAM10N

DAM10N — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:35:18 +0000

It is true that “many false beliefs can lead to survival behavior” such as the tendency to assume that the rustling in the bushes is due to another animal (potentially predator or prey) than merely the wind. Pascal Boyer wrote a pretty decent book explaining how evolution would inevitably select for an irrational over-detection of intention agency in the universe, and how this tendency would inevitably contribute to supernatural thinking.

Of course, metaphysical naturalists do not contend that people are always rational. We’d not have a lengthy list of informal fallacies if that were so. The question is not whether we are inevitably rational, but whether we are capable of thinking rationally, given enough skill, time, and effort.