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?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Sorry man, BS like this has to wait on the backburner while we deal with the emotional fallout from Davies-gate.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.