Is atheistic evolution irrational?

Question

According to atheistic evolution, our cognitive features have arisen from blind evolutionary mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc). Thus our neural-cognitive system is such that the beliefs it produces are aimed at "biological fitness and survival" and not necessarily "truth" (in the traditional sense). A few have stated that only "true" beliefs will be beneficial to survival, thus we can be relatively sure that our cognitive features yield true beliefs. Cognitive systems with false beliefs will die out. Yet this is defense is weak. Irrational fear can be a protective trait. Irrational self-confidence can also be beneficial fitness. Even bizarre beliefs, that while being totally wrong (e.g. pink elephants are looking for me), might produce certain behavior patterns that by chance preserve my genes when other behaviors will not. Etc.

If atheistic evolution is true, then our cognitive features yield "useful" beliefs at best.

Does this mean we are irrational when saying atheistic evolution is true, meaning we assert its truth while knowing we cannot assert truth?

Note: This does not apply to theistic evolution, of course.

Answer 1

I think I love you...

However, I should point out that your last statement gives it a crutch. Even if it doesn't give us beliefs that are necessarily true, it'll give us beliefs that benefit us. Unless atheists make the claim that reality can be interpreted as "what is fact" and not as "what is useful", your question is not really that hard at all. If I am the kind of atheist that holds claim to the latter belief (which a majority of atheists do, simply beacuse it's easier), then reality is not bound by what can be determined by science, and all kinds of things can make sense.

If I am an atheist that is bound by fact, then I can only point out that the cases your statement are pure anomalies and not the norm...

(you know, I think I might start arguing on behalf of the atheist... I used to think like one!)

Answer 2

According to Sartre we create a fictional afterlife because it is the way the human mind always works trying to figure out a way to survive or have hopes for survival. Having a false sense of security can be beneficial. I'd rather the actual "truth".

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying the context isn't 100% clear. If people's lives are successful with a system belief they will pass it down. Weather the system belief had any part of their success or not.

Answer 3

Actually one need only look at clutch size in birds to understand that inherent behovior in many animals is optimizing (although rarely perfectly optimal). Birds tend to produce clutch sizes that yield the most viable offspring. We may not think of how many eggs are laid as a behavior, but it does represent a programmed behavior.

For instance, a mother with eight eggs in her clutch will not be able to feed all of her chicks and most will die due to starvation. On the other hand, a mother with two eggs in her clutch might not lose any to starvation but probably could have supported more. Between these, a mother with five eggs in her clutch might have four chicks survive and one die.

Observation shows that while there is variation in the programmed behovior, most individuals will display near-optimal behavior.

So through no rational thought of her own, the mother is optimizing her behavior.

This releats to your 'question' as follows. Evolution does not require that the human mind is perfectly rational and perfectly accurate. It only requires that the fallabilities of peception do not harm an individuals survivability to the point that having cognitive ability becomes a hinderance.

Answer 4

You could of typed that question in so less time. And there is no such think as atheistic evolution. Or theistic evolution there is only one theroy of evolution which people try to bend backwards to add the name god in somehow. To say well god thought up the idea of evolution is completely irrational. Why would he waste so much time. And if you beleive in evolution and are a theist then that means you beleive that the old testament is mostly nonsense congradulations. Now if only people will beleive theres no such thing as magic we can get rid of the new testament.

Answer 5

No informed athest talks about true beliefs. Truth is relative. You are right about irrational beliefs being useful. The belief in God evolved as a useful way to explain things that early man could not understand and avoid "peering into the void." It serves the same purpose for some people today.

Answer 6

You err right off the bat by saying: "If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing." Matter was formed by energy, which the last time I checked wasn't nothing. Energy has existed forever. That's kind of where we get our first law of thermodynamics from. Matter is just a form of energy and can easily be "created" or "destroyed." Energy cannot. Fail. Edit: No crap it IS energy, that's what I said. Maybe you should take physics 101 again, for you apparently don't know even the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. I repeat again, the first law states YOU CANNOT DESTROY OR CREATE ENERGY. Edit 2: Oh yes, I forgot the whole "God exists outside of time and space and our universe because I said so and you can't prove me wrong" argument. Do you have proof for your claim that God exists outside of our observable world, or are you going to continue hiding behind the curtain of incredulity? Anyone can claim that the rules don't apply. That does not make you right though - it only makes you seem all the more uneducated. The laws apply to our universe. You cannot logically claim anything exists outside it without first providing evidence that the outside exists at all. What you also have to wonder is how the matter or energy gets to our universe if, as you claim, it can be destroyed or created outside it. To do so would be to flow against the tide of entropy and would quite frankly go against every law of thermodynamics that exists, as you claim, only IN our universe. So if your theory breaks the laws and ours does supposedly, then who's right? It all comes down to the evidence: you have none, while we do.

Answer 7

You are confusing the physical aspects of cognition with the intangibles of cognition. That is -- improved memory is evolutionarily advantageous to hominids, and so the physical structures needed for improved memory will develop over generations. However, you cannot apply biological evolution to the contents of the memory. You can apply biological evolution to the sections of the brain responsible for performing cost-benefit analysis of an action, however, you cannot apply biological evolution to the priorities a person holds that those sections process.

If you wish to look at the ideas themselves, you must enter the field of memetic evolution, and that's still a pseudo/proto science, so don't hold to it too much.

Answer 8

Those bizarre beliefs, theism for example, are most likely a once useful trait left over from evolution. like vestigial organs, or a moth's desire to fly into a flame. They do not serve a purpose and can be down right deadly at times, but may have served a purpose at one time.

Answer 9

No. I'm not even sure whether you support evolution or are against it. You provide a convincing reason for why religion exists (irrational beliefs can be positive for a species). Yet you also call it "atheistic evolution" when the two are not even related.

Answer 10

I cannot believe this question got so many negative ratings from people who couldn't answer it with facts. It would not surprise me to see somebody report it as abuse.

Of course it is. It is the exact definition of irrational: "ir-rational," non rational, totally by chance and previous conditions. At least it would be if naturalism were true. Only by assuming naturalism is not true can you argue about the subject, irrelevant rants about "sky daddies" aside.