Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
 

Has anyone heard this Alvin Plantinga argument?

-Darwin's Doubt: Since our brains evolved from lower animals, how can we trust them?

-Our nervous system was evolved for survival (reproduction, fleeing predators, metabolism, find food, etc.), not for finding truth.

-Darwin's bulldog Huxley believed in epiphenomenalism: your beliefs have no effect on your behavior. So evolution does nothing to ensure you have true beliefs.

-If epiphenomenalism is false, natural selection favors beliefs that lead to survival.

-Say you are a caveman and you see a lion.
(1) If you stay you will get eaten by the lion (true), so you run away.
(2) You are running a marathon, and the lion is just a signal "on your mark, get set..." (false).
(3) You think the lion is a cute little kitty (false) and you want to pet it, and the best way to pet it is to run away (false).

Only (1) is a true belief. But even if you harbor (2) or (3), natural selection will favor that belief.

So our brains aren't trustworthy.

what's naturalism?

is this theory based on the idea that dumb choices sometimes work out too, so therefore we are dumb?

Stronger than atheism. Some atheist physicists and mathematicians believe math exists in its own unseen platonic universe. Natural means nothing we can't directly observe exists.

exactly. except it's more than dumb, it's deluded.

Sorry man, BS like this has to wait on the backburner while we deal with the emotional fallout from Davies-gate.