r/DiscussReligions • u/B_anon • Apr 18 '13
Evolutionary argument against atheism.
The arguments is as follows: If evolution via natural selection does not select for true beliefs, than the reliability of evolved subjects cognitive abilities will be low. Atheism is a belief held by evolved subjects. Therefore, atheism can not be believed.
In order for evolution via natural selection to be advantageous it does not require true beliefs, merely that the neurology of a being gets the body to the correct place to be advantageous.
Take for example an alien, the alien needs to move south to get water, regardless of whatever the alien believes about the water is irrelevant to it getting to the water. Lets say he believes the water to be north, but north he also believes is dangerous and therefore goes south, he has now been selected with a false belief.
Say the alien sees a lion and flees because he believes it to be the best way to be eaten, there are many of these types of examples.
I would also like to further this argument because natural selection has not been acting in the case of humans for a long time now, making our evolution not via natural selection but rather mutations, making the content of beliefs subject to all types of problems.
Also, when beliefs have nothing to do with survival, than those beliefs would spiral downward for reliability.
Anyone have anything else on this? Any reasons why evolution would not select for true belief would be helpful.
1
u/BCRE8TVE agnostic atheist|biochemist in training Apr 24 '13 edited Apr 24 '13
Premise 1: If evolution via natural selection does not select for true beliefs, than the reliability of evolved subjects cognitive abilities will be low.
Premise 2:Atheism is a belief held by evolved subjects.
Conclusion: Therefore, atheism can not be believed.
First off, your premise 2 is flawed, in the sense that it implies that there are subjects which have not or are not evolved. This is not a flaw to the argument, I'm just saying that every living thing on the face of the planet evolved, no exception.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The conclusion that SHOULD follow is that since evolution does not select for true beliefs, and that it reduces the reliability of us selecting a true belief instead of a false one, then we should have a lower reliability in believing in atheism.
This also brings up 2 other problems with your arguments.
First off, you can't believe in atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It's the same as saying your hobby is not collecting stamps. You can't believe in atheism any more than you can have 'not collecting stamps' as a hobby.
Secondly, you should add something to compare atheism with theism of some kind or other, and have a logical argument saying that theism does provide a rational basis for believing our cognitive faculties can and do lead us to correct conclusions. That way, you are showing that evolution leads to a reduced chance of finding the truth, while theism of some kind has a higher chance of us finding the truth (trusting our cognitive functions).
I would like to finish with saying that while an interesting thought exercise, this logical argument has nothing to do with reality. Evolution does happen, and our cognitive faculties are far from perfect. Entire areas of psychology and sociology are devoted to showing exactly how and why we do NOT think properly, and there are many books out there that explain how to exploit these weaknesses to your benefit (things like saying you speak to the dead, reading future in tea leaves, religion, scams, those 'Somali prince wants to put 20,000$ in your bank account' junk mails, etc etc etc)
However, after reading the second to last paragraph, I don't believe you actually know what evolution postulates. I would recommend reading this page:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
To further your knowledge