Atheists: what do you make of this?

Question

1) We are the product of naturalistic (atheistic)
evolution.
2) Naturalistic evolution states that our cognitive
features produce beliefs aimed a biological fitness.
3) Beliefs aimed at biological fitness do not
necessarily need to be true.
4) Thus, belief (1) is not necessarily true.

If this argument is sound, does it mean naturalism is irrational?

eigelhorn: For example, an irrational fear of pink elephants might cause in a person behavioral traits that lead to his survival (e.g.caution, fear), when ordinary behaviors are less risk averse.

J.P. Evolution can be stated as a fact, but "naturalistic" evolution has not (any more than "theistic" evolution.

Answer 1

Question: Why would true beliefs not be of higher fitness to untrue beliefs?

Also, this merely an Atheist version of Universal Skepticism. The same thing can be postulated of possible trickster deities.

EDIT: The problem here is that the sight of pink elephants would not be encountered at all, thus would have no effect on the person.

The only way a fear of pink elephants would be useful if they either hallucinate pink elephants or mistake the colour of elephants for pink.

However, in both cases this would be detrimental as occasional spontenaeous sights of pink elephants would lead to desertion for poor reasons more often than desertion for good reasons.

As for seeing elephants as pink, the only way this could be done is to affect general systems, which would have effects on other things as well ( all colours messed up leads to an inability to identify to identify food, mates, etc. A certain shape triggering the sight of pink would yield the same problems as hallucinating pink elephants and would most likely develop pink phobias)

I would also mention that this example is for fears, as doesn't apply to your argument. You need to provide an example of an alteration of sensory perception or logical computation.

Answer 2

Your logic is screwed up here. To conclude that "naturalism" (I assume you mean biological evolution) is irrational, you must make a leap to certainty - from a mere possibility (4), which itself is based upon flimsy premises (2) and (3).

That fact that all of us, as humans, tend to engage in some irrational thought, does not mean that we are wrong about everything that we think we know. The trick is to train your mind to identify your biases, prejudices, and preconceptions, so that you can approach difficult questions with an open, objective mind. You should question authority, review the evidence, and consider alternatives. This process helps to ensure more accurate assessments and decisions. It is called critical thinking. This is easier for some than others. It can be learned.

Beliefs based on faith alone are virtually immune from critical thinking, so one is right to consider that there is a good chance that such beliefs are wrong.

Answer 3

If your argument is sound, then no it does not mean that naturalism is irrational. The flaw is in the third statement. In reference to biological fitness, where cognitive abilities are refered, then ill founded beliefs lead to the destruction of the species.

Sadly, these reminds me of the Atheist question, "Can God make a boulder so big that He can't move it." It's a word play designed to trap the opposing philosophy and thus secure "victory" for the person asking the question. I think we would be so much better suited if we eventually are able to discuss different views without feeling we must prove our view to be correct. Have a sound debate, not this word trickery.

Answer 4

You have a circular argument against circular arguments. Evolution does not attempt to prove itself true by circular reasoning. It requires external evidence which it has in abundance.

On the other hand, Creationists argue the Bible is true because it says it's true.

Answer 5

You're ignoring the fact that 1 is based on sound evidence, it is not just a belief.

Answer 6

I think you are basically correct. Hence our common belief in God is probably biologically based and not necessarily true.

Answer 7

Im confused on exactly what your trying to say. Wouldnt that mean beleiving in god wasnt true. And your crisscrossing to prove a point. A faith in god isnt needed for being heathy.

Answer 8

Naturalistic evolution has evidence, and is not based on "belief." Belief in God, in contrast, has no evidence to support it. Therefore #4 should read, "Thus, belief in God is not necessarily true."

Answer 9

You betcha! "There are no whole truths; all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil." Alfred North Whitehead
English mathematician & philosopher (1861 - 1947)

Answer 10

Not only the question but naturalism or atheism itself
is irrational.