With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Charles Darwin in a Letter to William Graham Down, July 3, 1881
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Take a look at the above article from the New York Times before reading.
SOME TERMS
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists but nature....things that can be reduced to an explanation of physics and chemistry. So, atheistic naturalism is sort of a redundant term, but nonetheless, conveys a belief that there is no God and no supernatural. I think that would be consistent with all the atheists I know and converse with or even read. I also have yet to meet an atheist that rejects scientific naturalism or evolution. So, the two are hand and foot, frick and frack.
Evolution can be defined as modification of species, over time, through decent, with the objective of survival. Evolution's basic interest is trying to get a species in the right place, at the right time, so that genes can be propagated. Anything that aids that process is favored by evolutionary modification through decent. So, evolution favors anything that aids in survival and disfavors anything (or at least is indifferent) to anything that doesn't aid survival. Patricia Churchland (pro evolution philosopher) has stated that evolution works on species using the four F's....fighting, fleeing, feeding and......reproduction. In other words, a species survives as manifested, behaviorally, by those four F's. Behavior conducive to survival is favored over all others.
Lastly, justified true beliefs can be defined as a knowledge claim/belief that represents or corresponds to reality and is justifiable for the person to hold. The idea is that we work towards believing as much true things as we can and rid ourselves of as much false beliefs as we can, in order to hold an accurate view of reality. This can only be done through properly functioning brains...sometimes referred to as noetic or cognitive equipment. If your thinking cap isn't functioning properly, then there is a very low or inscrutable probability that you'll be successful at the project of ridding yourself of false beliefs and gaining knowledge of justified true beliefs. If your noetic equipment is functioning properly and you have justification for the belief, then you have warrant for that belief as it corresponds to reality.
DARWIN'S DOUBT
The quote from Charles Darwin illustrates the problem between evolutionary forces, naturalism and the reliability of our knowledge claims/beliefs.
So, how does atheistic naturalism, evolutionary theory and the reliability of properly functioning thinking caps coalesce or jive with each other? Not very good at all. In fact, holding to atheistic naturalism, evolution and reliable beliefs are incompatible. Either you hold them all and conclude that there is little or no reliability in any of your beliefs, or else consider that you can rely on your cognitive abilities and question atheistic naturalism and evolution.
What's the probability that we can trust anything we believe, given atheistic naturalism and evolution? Restated as a probabilistic equation, what is P(R) = (N&E&C), where R = reliability of beliefs, N = naturalism, E = evolution and C = properly functioning cognitive abilities?
If P(R) > .5, then we have a good or favorable reliance on our beliefs as being true. If P(R) <.5, then our reliance on our beliefs is low or inscrutable. So, how does evolution and naturalism hold, in regards to our beliefs?
Natural Selection Is Interested in Beliefs That Aid Survival, Without Regards to the Truth of Those Beliefs
Consider the article from the New York Times, with regards to evolution, the God Gene and religious beliefs.
Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.
The article doesn't side with atheism and actually raises the idea that this new theory could be detente between atheists and the religious. But can it? As the article promotes, natural selection is mainly interested in survival and is indifferent to the content or veracity or truth of the belief. In essence, it doesn't matter if it's true. It only matters if it aids survival. So, if that is the case, then natural selection could promote false beliefs because they aid survival. In other words, natural selection has favored a belief that may not be true, because it helps aid in the survival of people groups.
If that is the case, then we are at a point where evolution, specifically, natural selection, is not interested or cares about the truth of a belief or knowledge claim. In essence, evolution cannot provide a basis for any justified true belief, as Darwin himself pointed out in his letter to Mr. Down.
So, given N&E, we are more apt to end up with P(R) <.5....or, given naturalism and evolution, the probablity of our beliefs being accurate are either low or inscrutable. An atheist may agree, with regards to religious beliefs. But the problem is, given the understanding of naturalism and evolution with regards to reliability of beliefs, it applies to ALL BELIEFS, including evolution and the hypothesis of the God Gene.
And here's where, given atheistic naturalism and evolution, we have a bottomless pit we can't jump out of, with regards to reliability on the truth of our knowledge of anything, including naturalism and evolution. In order to resolve this delimna, you would have to either abandon atheistic naturalism, evolution, both or hold to an incredible skepticism with regards to anything anyone could possibly know or believe.
So, can we believe in evolution and be religious? It would fix the problem with P(R) and by accepting a supernatural, including God, there would be a foundation that could provide a reliability in our beliefs that is greater than .5. But, since evolution was an attempt to provide a purely naturalistic explanation for all of life, without reliance on religious or supernatural beliefs, it seems that holding to belief in God along with evolution is sort of like trying to invite Castro and Reagan to live in your house. There's going to be tension and alot of discomfort! Once more, emperically, even though there is a great deal of evidence of change within species, there doesn't seem to be much credible evidence to support change between species....like a common ancestor between bats and, say, sponges.
But what evolution, specifically, and naturalism, in general, provide us is a defeater against the trustworthiness of any belief we have....in anything, including evolution and naturalism. It's called an undefeated defeater, as defined by Alvin Plantinga (as is most of the arguments presented in this note).
So, I think there are no good reasons to hold to either naturalism or evolution without jerking the rug out from under even your beliefs in evolution and naturalism. Given the fact we live in a postmodern world, we probably don't even care about that. We'll believe whatever the big plasma screen tells us, what Bono tells us or what Jon Stewart mocks or defends or what places us in the best possible light, regardless of its veracity. In essence, we're a pretty pathetic, self-absorbed, empty-headed (and hard hearted) culture. But, for those that still attempt to hold objective truth as something useful, then I think this line of thinking is solid and irrefutable.
I'll leave it up to the reader.
