The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism SPEED-RUN!

A version of the EAAN delivered really quickly.

[HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

It sounds like an argument for wanting theism to be true, rather than for it being true

[Latter_broccoli]

I have a hard time understanding how the argument manages to escape complete skepticism, since the argument itself is produced by our natural cognitive faculties. It surely and legitimately reminds us that we are faillible, but given the fact that humans seems to be able to adopt plausible beliefs which are totally unadaptative, doesn't seem weird to then reject naturalism and adopt a theistic worldview on the basis of pure faith?

[palladin]

As...interesting as this short video is, you gloss over one very important fact.
The Scientific Process is *designed* to filter out bad ideas and claims which do not hold up to scrutiny. Belief is *not* a factor, only whether or not the theory you've proposed is capable of standing up to scrutiny and testing, especially the scrutiny and testing of competing scientists.
Evolution isn't a belief, but a Scientific Theory which has largely stood the test of peer review for a very long time. More importantly, at no point in it do you need to invoke a God of any kind in order for it to make sense.

[HyperFocusMarshmallow]

I think this argument kind of shoots itself in the foot a little bit. Suppose naturalism (with evolution) is true. Either we have some degree of reliability from our evolved brain or we don’t. If we do then that’s fine and at least some of our reasoning works and we might discover some truths about the world and eventually evolution. Self consistency, alright! If we don’t then we are deluded about somethings, maybe most things and that just sucks and that may be so. Ok, so what, are we theists now? Even if we were to be theists we will hence forth always need to wonder if we’re in that deluded state of naturalism and we just believe in God as a delusion.

It’s easy to make up scenarios where we are deluded on theism as well of course something akin to Descartes demon for example. And infinitely many other scenarios (simulation, virtual reality, Boltzmann brains, dreams, psychosis to name a few.)

Thinking of such states doesn’t increase our confidence in anything in particular other than skepticism hence it’s not a good argument for becoming or staying a Christian (though I’m not saying that that is necessarily the purpose of the argument but still).

Our knowledge is fallible.

If we accept that, we can happily go back to doing our best to understand the world around us as we experience it, updating our beliefs as we learn new things.

Take this as an impetus to learn more about evolution and it’s mechanisms it’s a really cool subject.
Neurobiology is also fascinating.
Lots of aspect of modern science takes into account that our initial intuitive notions about how the world works are not fully reliable. But it appear that we can improve on them!

[somerandom]

What part of this video was supposed to disprove naturalism?

Yes, our brains are unreliable. Hence why we all have differing ideas about all of these issues. Exactly what you should expect from a naturalistic

[zahydierodriguez]

Prepare for the atheist and there 100 page comment rebuttal to your video

[arthurwieczorek]

Your brains complete reliability is proof of God's existence. Wow. Somebody who has never made a mistake.

[TMHedgehog]

This is a horrendous argument, that ignores the fact that true beliefs are more likely to be beneficial to survival than false ones, even if evolution doesn't care which produces the survival, true beliefs will produce survival more often.

[CarlosAM]

Intelligence can help with survival, ya think this screen you are reading this on popped into existence? Things can be tried to see if they are correct, if not then all knowledge would be pure feelings, the proof is not being made by your brain as an instinct, its being observed and analized by the intelligence which we evolved.

Put simply, theres no need for a god.

[HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

This argument would be stronger if beliefs were inheritable traits, determined by our genetics.

[dertechl]

Truth is what humans declare to be true. As simple as that.

[MrAdamo]

im sorry, but there's something i don't understand about this argument. doesn't this lock you into claiming that true beliefs are most likely not advantageous for survival?

[rohanjames]

YouTube automatically unsubed me from this channel :(

[Ap]

The comment section here is gold. All but one of the atheists I saw here missed your point which took less than a minute to make. It really shows just how little attention they actually pay.

[phoebus]

You know that there are more ways to look at pychology other than the evolutionary approach.

[malvokaquila]

This was much shorter than Alvin Plantingas version🤣👍

[UnknownYoo]

These speed runs are fantastic! Thanks so much!

[toma]

Can you simply this for me? What does it mean in simple terms?

[MisterItchy]

You may not be the best apologist out there but you are certainly the most efficient. Unfortunately, it's still pretty weak-sauce.

[webslinger]

Great work👍👍 I think a good video to do is the cosmological argument