tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6537335987000549876..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Evolution and the Principle of Sufficient ReasonAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-5801255552220043782009-11-25T09:48:00.144-06:002009-11-25T09:48:00.144-06:00Surely that is right. Moreover, I think the number...Surely that is right. Moreover, I think the number of strong ad hominem arguments one can launch against the anti-PSR naturalist are almost endless.<br /><br />Think, for about the resurrection. A typical naturalist response runs like C.D. Broad's Humean account where he admits that:<br /><br />"We have testimony to the effect that the disciples were exceedingly depressed at the time of the Crucifixion; that they had extremely little faith in the future; and that, after a certain time, this depression disappeared, and they believed that they had evidence that their Master had risen from the dead. Now knowing of these alleged facts is in the least odd or improbable, and we have therefore little ground for not accepting them on the testimony offered us. But having done this, we are faced with the problem of accounting for the facts which we have accepted. What caused the disciples to believe, contrary to their previous conviction, and in spite of their feeling of depression, that Christ had risen from the dead? Clearly, one explanation is that He actually had arisen." (C.D. Broad, “Hume’s Theory of the Credibility of Miracles,” Proceedings from the Aristotelian Society 17. 1916-17)<br /><br />Against this, he finds the antecedent improbability of a miraculous resurrection to be so great that it should not be favored over possible naturalistic explanations that we haven't thought of. <br /><br />But imagine if a skeptic took this argument *and* rejected the PSR. He would have no good naturalistic explanation and he would, therefore, have to accept that the resurrection probably occurred as an unexplainable brute fact. There is no antecedent improbability of a brute fact, the probability of such events would itself be brute.<br /><br />And this, I think, would be very uncomfortable for the naturalist who surely does not want to substitute brute-ness for God in such an array of circumstances.Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-8130484666724849622009-11-24T18:50:57.991-06:002009-11-24T18:50:57.991-06:00I think people who deny the PSR do want to rope of...I think people who deny the PSR do want to rope off brute facts, assuming that they are small and individually unimportant.<br /><br />Another problem is that the random features of evolution have to satisfy certain probabilistic regularities. But then, I think, they cannot be completely brute.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-39634411537931830522009-11-24T18:44:28.214-06:002009-11-24T18:44:28.214-06:00But, I must admit, that would sound somewhat kooky...But, I must admit, that would sound somewhat kooky (technical term). <br /><br />Why do they so struggle over the origin of the life of that single celled organism if they could just say: "There is no reason, it's brute"? <br /><br />It does seems for all the world like they are assuming the PSR. So maybe they wouldn't readily assent. In conclusion, I'm confused as to whether this argument motivates the PSR or not. <br /><br />Thanks for your help, Prof. Pruss!Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-91014163948598162262009-11-24T18:35:50.993-06:002009-11-24T18:35:50.993-06:00Alright, thank you.
Perhaps I was just putting to...Alright, thank you.<br /><br />Perhaps I was just putting to much pressure on the argument. From the way it was used in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology essay, I thought it would have to be a kind of EAAN to have much purchase.<br /><br />I just think that while:<br /><br />"Most atheists and agnostics, and some theists, believe that there is a [complete] naturalistic evolutionary explanation of the development of the human species from a single celled organism."<br /><br />They would readily assent to my formulation if pressed.Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36686918939168365162009-11-24T18:33:31.509-06:002009-11-24T18:33:31.509-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-85984532960256849732009-11-24T18:25:17.859-06:002009-11-24T18:25:17.859-06:00That's consistent for the naturalist, in a way...That's consistent for the naturalist, in a way in which the claim that there is a complete evolutionary explanation of our species is not.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-45501167552762816202009-11-24T18:07:21.450-06:002009-11-24T18:07:21.450-06:00Alex:
Fair enough. Maybe none. Let me restate my ...Alex:<br /><br />Fair enough. Maybe none. Let me restate my point. You say:<br /><br />"it would be hard to be justifiedly confident that no features of the human species arose for no reason at all"<br /><br />My question is why can't an evolutionary naturalist say:<br /><br />"So what? I do not need to make that claim. I think only that the universe exists for no reason and that evolution explains the development of the species to the extent that there is an explanation."<br /><br />Why is this uncomfortable for the naturalist?<br /><br />Thanks.Latenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-59781703791296697902009-11-24T17:39:33.408-06:002009-11-24T17:39:33.408-06:00But what reason is there to think they were small?...But what reason is there to think they were small?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-27228075428640754612009-11-24T17:15:55.823-06:002009-11-24T17:15:55.823-06:00Alex:
I'm not sure I see this. Couldn't y...Alex:<br /><br />I'm not sure I see this. Couldn't you just say:<br /><br />"Well, of course there are brute facts, but, historically, they are very rare and very small. That's why we don't see them in our daily experience. In fact, for all I know many random mutations were brute facts. And that only isn't contradictory, but is central to evolutionary naturalism."<br /><br />Thanks, <br />RobLatenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028986769458356612noreply@blogger.com