after a hiatus - coprophagia and God

I have decided to try to write here more often, so for the three to 300 people that read this blog, hopefully you come back and take a look.

I am now a tenured associate prof (Virgina Commonwealth University) and felt the urge to discuss a bit about Donald Hoffman (UC-Irvine). Hoffman champions the fitness-beats-truth theory (FBT), which, to be frank, is extremely compelling and perhaps equally alarming. Thinking the world is just a construction of the observer has been an idea championed by some of the greatest thinkers (Locke, Berkeley for two) and the hardcore version of this is called solipsism (only our minds likely exist). One immediate problem with this idea for me is how could, based on this thinking, our minds exist if we perceive them (i.e. look at neurons under a microscope). But I digress.

 Most people who think about whether objects really exist do not think solipsism is correct-- mostly because it is so counter-intuitive (e.g. stand in a room with another person and a chair, close your eyes, and you still bump into the chair, and, furthermore, with your eyes close, the other person can still see that chair). However, this does not by any means prove any object like the one we perceive as a chair exists. It may mean we need to take it seriously (like we need to for we perceive as a venomous snake), as our senses certainly sense it to exist. But that says nothing at all about what actually exists in that space we perceive a chair. Again, while it is very intuitive that the sun and your television exist, there is no evidence that what we perceive are veridical. Hence, why thinkers come down on both side of the fence (if it exists) on this. 

FBT is a scientifically compelling conclusion we unfortunately (i suppose, depending on what you believe) must accept. Evolutionary game theory for one has all but proven FBT to be true. That is, if one accepts evolutionary theory to be true (like I do) and since we evolved to have grandkids and not to see things are they truly are- evolutionary game theory has demonstrated practically without a shadow of doubt that truth would have not co-evolved with fitness.  Hoffman's latest book,  The case against reality: How Evolution hid the truth from our eyes, uses examples of game theory to demonstrate how this is so, and i won't get into it here.

Anyone that owns a dog knows what coprophagia can look like- some animals and even plants, thrive off eating poop from (mostly) other animals. We can see the divergence in people- not only is this disgusting to us, it would make us extremely sick.  Since it is not good for us (decreases our fitness), our senses have developed accordingly, to react viscerally to it. On the other hand, coprophagous animals have no such reactions. Of course, since it helps them survive (increases their fitness), they likely derive pleasure from it. We may think of it was a matter of taste but that would be missing the point; besides, there are real tastes perceived from mind-- we use words like "bitter" and "sweet"- that would be almost certainly discordant with how coprophagous animals detect the taste.  

How is it that there could be such diverging sensual responses to something, to us, and many plants and animals, to something as disgusting as that? How about thermophiles that think 120 degrees is a bit breezy?  Or maggots that feel at home in a deer carcass? 

The answer simply is different organisms have evolved to perceive things that happen to correspond to how they evolved to give them the most fitness points. Although painstakingly counter-intuitive, there is no good reason whatsoever (and on the contrast, almost mathematically certain) that we have evolved with very little true information about how the external world objectively is. 

Now, I have no idea what Hoffman's worldviews are, and, as these are metaphysical in nature, don't belong in a science book of any sort.

But of course, thinkers like Lewis and Plantinga have made metaphysical leaps here based on similar but less severe (and less scientific) accusations. Essentially they argue, if our brains evolved over time through natural selection there is no good reason to suspect they have true perceptions and perceive things as they truly and objectively are, nor can evolving brains be relied on to understand, say, where that matter came from in the first place. While this may seem like a similar conclusion one could draw metaphysically from FBT, I would disagree. If FBT was accepted, I suppose if this was 1962, Lewis could go much further to support his metaphysical claims. Namely,  it seems to me FBT could move the argument from "no good reason to suspect" to "is not possible". 

Then what now? How could a naturalist dig his heels in here? I have to admit this: the ramifications of FBT alone would seem daunting to me if I had a naturalistic worldview. 

more about John Wright's conversion

A philosopher goes where the truth leads, and has no patience with mere emotion.

But it was impossible, logically impossible, that I should ever believe in such nonsense as to believe in the supernatural. It would be a miracle to get me to believe in miracles.

So I prayed. "Dear God, I know (because I can prove it with the certainty that a geometer can prove opposite angles are equal) that you do not exist. Nonetheless, as a scholar, I am forced to entertain the hypothetical possibility that I am mistaken. So just in case I am mistaken, please reveal yourself to me in some fashion that will prove your case. If you do not answer, I can safely assume that either you do not care whether I believe in you, or that you have no power to produce evidence to persuade me. The former argues you not beneficent, the latter not omnipotent: in either case unworthy of worship. If you do not exist, this prayer is merely words in the air, and I lose nothing but a bit of my dignity. Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation in this matter, John Wright."

Supernatural conversions interest me, and as the great Golden Eagle Peter Kreeft would call these "part of the argument from religious experience", always interesting to read. The natural part of John Wright's conversion is almost as interesting. It has very familiar parts to it in the intelligentsia of 2018: 1) an ardent atheist who for presuppositions or other (like love of a particular sin, anger towards God for life's hurts, etc) refuse to even entertain the belief in God; 2) an eventual unquenching thirst for truth and 3) someone in their life that is meaningful whom is a Christian on the outside and inside.

I highly recommend reading about it, in John Wright's words at

https://strangenotions.com/wright-conversion/

Conversions

I just got finished listening to a delightful little book by an ex-Syracuse English professor, who converted to Christianity somewhere following tenure (“The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert”). As someone influenced by the anti-Christian spirit that can be found in some academic institutions (I’ve never encountered this anywhere I have been, including Harvard which was probably the most spiritual academic place I have been, and I got my doctorate AT a Christian college). It got me to think, what are some of the most distinct and dramatic conversions I am aware. Here are eight that pop into my mind, and, like life, are diverse.

1)    CS Lewis. Lewis is probably the most influential Christian writer of the last 500 years. His conversion from a devout Atheist at Oxford was centered on one of the most essential reads of all Christian writings, GK Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man.

2) Anthony Flew. Antony Flew was the 2^nd if not most prominent Atheist philosopher of the 20^th century. Several years before his death, the Brit lost his Atheist faith based on the realization that life is here by accident is ludicrious. (see “There is a God” by Anthony Flew).

3) John C. Wright, acclaimed science fiction writer

“I prayed. ‘Dear God, I know… that you do not exist. Nonetheless, as a scholar, I am forced to entertain the hypothetical possibility that I am mistaken’

Soon after, Wright over a series of days had a number of visions and physical encounters with Biblical figures.

4) Edward Feser   One of my favorite contemporary philosophers, Edward Feser converted to Catholism in his 30’s.  Feser is a prolific and highly-skilled writer. “The Last Superstition” is a contemporary philosophical masterpiece refuting the new (recycled) atheism from the likes of Harris and Dawkins. It was classical theistic viewpoints from Augustine and Aquinas that convinced Feser of the truth of theism.

5) Alister McGrath. Another leading philosopher, Alister McGrath was a product of the 60’s British attitudes towards God, particularly in academia. When he had to consider theism as part of his educational process, he dreadfully at first, realized that it had explanatory power that atheism was completely void of. He has since become a leading philosopher in Theism, and is also a prolific writer and critic of Dawkins and Harris.

6) My favorite conversion is of the great 20^th century evolutionary biologist, George Price. In a remarkable recount of his life, “The Price of Altruism” explains how Price realized that good in this world was outside of any explanatory power, and dedicated the last years of his life fully entrenched in helping the poor. He died of despair, killing himself because of the pain he felt of the people suffering in this world. One of the most remarkable people to live, his story is unforgettable.

7) The best looking person on this list, by far (sorry Alistair), Olivia Wilde. Olivia Wilde was an ardent materialist, and preparing for a film a few years ago, she was led to read NY police records of alleged exorcisms that took place. She came to think the reports as utterly true, and is now a theist.

8) M, via E.  I met M through E at Harvard. E was a very bright, extremely well-behaved and sincere young Christian who is now in her medical residency. She was married to M, who was an atheist, until meeting E. He is now training as a Ph.D. student in philosophy. However, M becaome a Christian because E is an incredibly generous and caring person, not because an intellectual awakening. These are the best conversion stories, I think, in the eyes of the Almighty.