Re: [asa] Natural Selection and Reliable Beliefs

> Right now the discussion turns on a hypothetical creature, in a hypothetical
> world in which naturalism is true, that believes trees are witches. The
> creature has the belief "appletree witch is blooming." That the creature
> could hold this belief supposedly demonstrates that natural selection can
> result in unreliable beliefs, which supposedly leads to the conclusion that
> there is no reason to accept an epistemology rooted in natural selection /
> naturalism.

[It's probably worth noting for clarity that natural selection and
philosophical naturalism are independent but overlapping. Natural
selection/naturalism as a designation of a view that combines the two
is valid; claiming that they are inherently united is not.]

The last step is, of course, problematic also. The fact that natural
selection can result in unreliable beliefs does not prove that an
epistemology rooted in natural selection/naturalism is always
unreliable. It merely proves that it is not guarenteed to be
reliable.

There also seems to be a jump in this example from "belief that
originated within a framework generated by natural selection" to
"epistemology rooted in natural selection/naturalism." I would think
the latter would be a philosophical system that was developed based on
considerations about natural selection and naturalism. The fact that
some person operating within a given system (or even working with the
philosophical premises of a system) comes up with a particular idea is
not necessarily the fault of the system. If it were, every heresy
would disprove the parent religion.

Any epistemology would require assumptions about logic, etc. (such as
non-self contradiction), which are not in themselves derivable from
natural selection nor from naturalism.

If one were to assume that our logical facilities are a product of
evolution without any divine guidance or involvement, one would
probably conclude that they are very useful but not infallible.
Natural selection provides some strong constraints. We cannot long
survive while thinking that the law of gravity is subject to our
whims, for example. However, it doesn't provide much constraint on
how we think about it, as long as we recognize its practical effects.
Some aspects of natural selection may prompt us to think and/or act
less rationally in certain situations, especially if we respond in a
way that evolved to deal with another situation that has some critical
difference. Also, it's fairly obvious under any scenario that humans
are rather less than omniscient and make mistakes. I don't know of
any credible epistemology that fails to acknowledge that human
reasoning is not fully reliable, so I'm not seeing much apologetic
promise along this line.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.