Atheist evolutionists (rephrased, reposted)...?

Question

Evolution by natural selection is based on survival of the fittest.

The fittest is whatever being acts in such away that allows it to survive.

These actions are spurred by beliefs.

These beliefs are not necessarily true, only useful.

Therefore, we cannot know our beliefs are true.

By "beliefs" I'm referring to thoughts in general.

Southpaw: Does that change the argument that atheists cannot trust they know anything?

EvolvedK: By belief I meant an thought that affects behavior.

2nd Squirrel: How does that change the argument that atheists cannot know they know anything?

BugNug: Darwin also asked if we should trust the mind of an evolved ape.

Answer 1

> Evolution by natural selection
> is based on survival of the fittest.

No, evolution is change over time. Natural selection is the means by which evolution happens. They are not the same thing. The word "evolution" is nowhere in Origin of Species -- it was used well before that. Origin of Species (natural selection) is the theory by which Darwin explained the known phenomena of evolution.

> The fittest is whatever being acts in such
> away that allows it to survive.

Not necessarily -- the fittest is whichever species can react to change.

> These actions are spurred by beliefs.

No, when extremely drug resistant TB evolved, for example, it did not do so based on any belief. It happened through natural selection.

Only in very complex organisms would any belief have anything to do with it -- if ever.

EDIT: Most organisms do not have thoughts either. Even most organisms with brains -- for example insects -- probably do not have thoughts.

-----------------
EDIT 2: Ah -- I see your point.

It's a fair point that evolution wouldn't necessarily produce reason or truth. There are in fact evolutionary hypotheses as to why people may think unreasonable things. There are also hypotheses as to why humans are so good at math, logic, etc.

But to accept either of those hypotheses, you would first have to suppose that you have enough logic to so. There is, to that extent, a logical problem -- you're accepting a theorem (logic from evolution) using that theorem (logic from evolution).

So our ability to think logically simply must be taken as an axiom.

Either way though, you're taking something as an axiom. If you suppose that God gave us logic and reason, you're accepting that without an a priori theorem, so you're stuck with the same problem.

Answer 2

nobody can ever know if their beliefs are true, regardless of what those beliefs are. As Gödel explained quite elegantly, a formal system can never prove it's own validity. Logic is founded in the murky shadows beyond and beneath logic. This has nothing to do with evolution or atheism: every belief that actually has any meaning is formulated in logic. Gödel then went on to claim logic was ontologically dependent on God, but of course he could in no way prove that because he had to go beyond logic. In fact, the name "God" for what is beyond logic is misleading. It is simply "that of which we cannot speak". Any theory which involves the unnamable as an agent, character or object is completely meaningless. So Gödel should have to pick: either God is a term with logical meaning, and then it is just part of his theory about the world and in fact dependant upon logic, or it is indeed the unnamable which he has named because you have to use some word to refer to the thing to which you can't refer, and he should not object if I call it "the Tao", "Nirvana", "Chaos" or "Nothing".

edit: I think second squirreling said the same thing much more understandably...

Answer 3

Only some actions are based on beliefs. Like the bunny said, most survival type actions are instinctual. The way suicide bombers act on their beliefs is also an example of survival of the fittest, showing how his beliefs were part of what made him unfit to continue his bloodline. It would be nice if we could treat those extremeists like we do dangerous cults in America, as a seperate entity from whatever faith they may have branched off of. Unfortunately, when hundreds of them are cheering the deaths of Americans in the streets, we can't.

Answer 4

If I want to survive in the ocean, I can act all I want like I have gills, I can even act like I am breathing underwater, but I will not survive. Evolution by natural selection is not a function of actions, but rather ability. Camouflage is not an act, it is an ability. Do you see?

http://www.talkorigins.com check out that site, you will learn a lot about a subject you are ignorant about. Ignorance can be cured! Read a book on evolution rather than spew forth what your preacher tells you.

Answer 5

That is why you have to depend on repeatable and measurable evidence. You can't trust your own perception.

We are very wired by evolution to see patterns everywhere. The reason is simple. You think a big cat is hiding under that tree and you avoid it. You live rather it was a cat or not. You miss the big cat hiding under a tree, you die.

This leads us to see all kinds of patterns that aren't really there. Its where religion comes from.

Answer 6

Beliefs drive evolution? That's... well... dunderheaded. You honestly think that cockroaches survive so well because they believe they can?

Answer 7

Beliefs, which are very short lived on the evolutionary scale and also very very recent, have nothing to do with evolution which happens extremely slowly over millions of years. This I learned in middle school.

Answer 8

Actions are only a part of survival. The way we're built, the way we look has a lot to do with our ability to survive and replicate ourselves.

Answer 9

You started off with a minor error, and then got progressively more wrong as you went along.

Answer 10

sorry, but evolution has nothing at all to do with belief structure. evolution affects all manner of animals and plants that have no belief structure whatsoever. Thanks for playing though.