Atheist Debates - Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

"Naturalistic evolution selects FOR traits that tend to lead to survival.
SOME true beliefs about the natural world lead to survival
SOME false beliefs can also lead to survival
The probability of a given survival-promoting belief being true is LOW OR INSCRUTABLE
Therefore: If naturalism is true, then our cognitive faculties are unreliable…which means we cannot know if naturalism is true.

In short: If naturalism is true, you can’t know that naturalism is true."

OK, and....?

[johnmurphy]

Plantinga, once again, uses a pure Strawman version of Evolution.
He is no different than your average "Liar For Jesus".

[kappasphere]

This is the most funny kind of "argument from consequences":
The kind where the argument not only goes "If X, then Y, and I don't like Y, so X must be false", but also, Y can be actively observed and found to be true.

I can elaborate on that in the example of the given argument:
The argument goes that if naturalism is true, we can't ultimately determine truth, as our faculties will only be tangentially related to truth-finding, and we might have various adaptations that favor survival over truth. Because I don't like these consequences, naturalism must be false.

But the funny thing is that we can actually go and take a look at the consequences that are being described here. Do human brains sometimes find false things to be true? Do humans experience illusions that can be explained by their brains favoring survival over truth? The answer to both of these questions is yes, as can be shown by simply giving examples:

Some people believe that the earth is flat, which can be explained by group behavior reinforcing beliefs, and said group behavior being favored over truth, as not being expelled from your group gives you higher chances at survival than being correct about abstract questions like the shape of the earth.

[bodan]

Look at the tree.
The tree itself does not change whether God exits or not. What changes is _your_ perception of that tree.
We can from this fact, quite easilly argue, that to reality; God does not matter. Except through our perception... thus... God is all in your head.

[pansepot]

Imo that’s a pile of garbage. There’s so much wrong that it would take an essay to go through everything.
I just point out what is imo a glaring black and white fallacy. Just because our faculties are sometimes unreliable it doesn’t mean that they are always unreliable.
Take a car. Are cars 100% reliable? No. Occasionally they can let you down. Just because they can break down it doesn’t mean they can’t take you reliably to work. And a car reliability depends a great deal on how you maintain it.
Same for human cognition. Just because it can make mistakes (eg confuse the rustling of wind for a predator) it doesn’t mean it’s wrong the other 99% of the times when it rightly beliefs that a predator, a snake, a poisonous plant, strong currents in a river, etc. etc. are dangerous.
He leaps from “sometimes we believe false things” to “we can’t know if what we believe is true or false”. The very reason we have “true” and “false” is because we have a process to make that determination.

[seraphonica]

confidence, like many things theists have issues with, is a spectrum. I'll never have 100% certainty in naturalism. but I can function with less, and I do.

[nilavakar]

Poets and artists, they also live with us and affect our thoughts through their works even though they have died, many didn't even pass on any genes.. but their thoughts still survive.. isn't that a very nice way to ensure your survival, too? Writers might not have kids, but there are so many kids who have grown up reading their stories...

[ijaygee]

"The probability of a given survival-promoting belief being true is LOW or INSCRUTABLE". A belief is not a trait. It is the consequence of a trait that allows for belief - an imagination. If that trait has been selected for, then the beliefs it allows MUST be beneficial for survival. Our imagination allows us to think of scenarios and how to deal with them. It allows us to imagine solutions to problems, and create tools to overcome our limitations.

For a false belief to promote survival it must be beneficial. Not believing a tiger is waiting in the grass will lead to an early demise the day there is a tiger - a false belief got you killed. Believing a tiger may be waiting in the grass, will result in an appropriate level of caution and better odds for survival. It matters not how many times this belief is false, it matters on the day it is true, ergo TRUE beliefs promote survival.

The key to survival is efficiency. Believing things that waste time/energy/resources do not promote survival. Wishing/praying/wasting energy on things that are not true and/or are fruitless or pointless, does not promote survival.

The fact is, taking a naturalistic view, better describes reality, ergo believing true things results in better understanding of reality, and consequently better promotes survival.

The premise/assertion is clearly incorrect. The probability of a given survival-promoting belief being true is HIGH and TESTABLE/KNOWABLE/SCRUTABLE - this is science, and knowledge of reality over fantasy definitely promotes survival.

The point is, science is the investigation of naturalism, and in most instances this promotes survival, because it allows us to predict the future in reality and actuality, not fantasy. We can estimate the size of the tiger population. We can map their preferred hunting grounds, discern their preferred hunting times, we can test their fear of fire, we can set-up warning systems for their approach. There is no doubt whatsoever that true beliefs promote survival, and false beliefs, although sometimes beneficial, will in most instances be a waste of time, energy, and resources, which is clearly detrimental to survival.


There are no grounds whatsoever to assert that the probability of survival-promoting beliefs being true is low or inscrutable. We scrutinise everything, because we are inquisitive, and exploration of the environment and reality (i.e. naturalism), is the only way of testing which beliefs we hold are true or not. And we have found that believing the truth is the best means of survival.

Naturalistic evolution selects FOR traits that lead to survival.
ALL true beliefs about the natural world lead to survival - there is not one true belief about the natural world that can lead to our demise.
SOME false beliefs MAY lead to survival - every false belief has some potential to lead to our demise.
The probability of a given belief being true is HIGH and TESTABLE/FALSIFIABLE.
Therefore: As we have evolved over several million years, and Homo Sapiens have survived for over 250, 000 years, Naturalism is true, and we can trust our cognitive abilities.

We live in the real world, ergo true beliefs about the real world lead to better survival - that is a self-evident truth.

[phrozenwun]

I don't accept that to "know" means that an understanding is absolutely inviolate. It is my understanding that knowledge is always subject to change with new information, perhaps not gross change but change nonetheless. The most coherently representative epistemology of which I am aware is that of Bayesian epistemology and in this context knowledge becomes immune to absolutist attacks that are almost always employed to insert some form of sophistry as a means to promote incoherence, often with ulterior motives.

[chuckgaydos]

If we're designed then we might just be believing what we were designed to believe, not necessarily what's true. We'd have no reason to trust our ability to reason.

[LouieSankey]

I haven't ever been able to completely follow Plantinga's argument, hopefully I'll finally understand it after watching this!

[jeffmason]

Are beliefs heritable? By that I don’t mean that children may tend to believe what they are taught by their parents. The capacity for language may be heritable, but the content of speech does not seem to be. Can one, for example, have a genetically based proclivity to believe that the earth is an oblate spheroid that rotates on an axis? That seems absurd to me.

[johnwilson]

Total conflation of adaptation with evolution. Add the word heritable before traits in the first assertion of the argument. After this, it is clear how bad (as Matt pointed out) the implicit assertion that beliefs are traits really is. If one divides adaptation into two primary domains of evolution and learning, it is clear that beliefs are part of the learning domain and not really a part of the evolution domain. The ability of the the organism to learn and hold beliefs is part of the evolutionary domain, but that is a different thing. We don't evolve beliefs we evolve the capacity to learn.... the argument is worthless.

[bodan]

"There is no right, there is no wrong. There are only consequences, and the lessons they teach."

[FeliciaByNature]

If EAAN is true, wouldn't an Evolutionary Argument Against God also be true? If our perceptions are faulty, couldn't ones perception of god also be faulty? You could argue that god specifically hones our perceptions to understand "the truth" of god, but if that's the case then we don't truly have free will as described by Christianity.

[cullenjohnson]

The fact that someone can argue this and believe that it proves people didn’t evolve is evidence that people did evolve.

[Dawnarow]

Perfect format :)
We're going places!

[caligulathegod]

OK, let's grant the premise that false beliefs can affect likelihood for survival. How would that manifest? We might draw false conclusions and develop beliefs that are strongly held but are essentially false. We do, they are called superstitions. For instance, a baseball player might wear his lucky socks because he once hit a home run while wearing them.

[RustyWalker]

"Therefore: If naturalism is true, then our cognitive faculties are unreliable…which means we cannot know if naturalism is true."
That's why we liaise with other minds. There is no reason to think our minds are all unreliable _in the exact same ways, _ thus by many minds working on a problem, we will tend towards more accurate explanations.

"The probability of a given survival-promoting belief being true is LOW OR INSCRUTABLE."
I don't see an indication as to why the probability would be low or inscrutable. The premises only said some beliefs that are true lead to survival and some that are false also lead to survival, but they never suggested one would occur more frequently than the other.

[Devious_Dave]

Nice vid. Is Plantinga respected by non-Christians? His arguments seem to be designed to appeal only to those who already agree with him. That's not the sign of a persuasive thinker.

[CorwynGC]

I don't WANT 100% certainty in naturalism. Or anything else for that matter. A proper search for truth REQUIRES that no premise be given an extreme credence (0% or 100%). Otherwise, I could never change that credence.