Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Alvin Plantinga, Templeton Prize 2017

Summary

In this thought-provoking discussion, the speaker challenges the compatibility of naturalism and evolution with reliable cognition. He argues that if naturalism (the belief that only physical substances exist) and evolution (which shapes our cognitive faculties through adaptive behaviors) are true, then our beliefs, though adaptive, cannot be trusted as true. Evolution shapes behavior, not the truth of our beliefs, and thus the probability of cognitive reliability is low. This argument leads to a self-defeating position where naturalists must either embrace complete skepticism or reject the rational acceptance of both naturalism and evolution as compatible with trustworthy cognition.

Takeaways

• 😀 Naturalism is the belief that only physical substances exist, rejecting the concept of God or any divine being.
• 😀 Naturalism goes beyond atheism, as atheism only denies the existence of God, while naturalism denies any supernatural or immaterial entities.
• 😀 Alvin argues that naturalism and evolution conflict with each other, particularly regarding the reliability of cognitive faculties.
• 😀 Evolution, which involves descent with modification driven by natural selection, may lead to adaptive behaviors but does not guarantee true beliefs.
• 😀 Beliefs formed under naturalism and evolution may not align with truth because the cognitive faculties producing them are shaped by survival, not accuracy.
• 😀 Cognitive faculties like perception, memory, and intuition are assumed to be reliable, but naturalism and evolution undermine this assumption.
• 😀 If evolution and naturalism are true, the reliability of our cognitive faculties is questionable, as beliefs may be false yet still adaptive.
• 😀 The reliability of cognitive faculties is critical for truth, but naturalism and evolution make it improbable that our faculties are consistently reliable.
• 😀 A naturalist who accepts evolution faces a self-referential problem, as they cannot logically trust their own cognitive faculties without falling into skepticism.
• 😀 Alvin's argument is not about disproving naturalism and evolution, but rather showing that believing in both simultaneously is irrational and self-defeating.
• 😀 A naturalist who accepts evolution is led to a position of complete skepticism, where they cannot trust their beliefs or cognitive faculties.

Q & A

What is the difference between atheism and naturalism according to Alvin?

Atheism is simply the denial of the existence of God, whereas naturalism is a stronger position that denies the existence of God or anything like God, and asserts that only physical, material reality exists.

How does Alvin define evolution in this context?

Alvin defines evolution as the process of descent with modification, where natural selection acts on random genetic mutations to shape the development of species, including humans.

What is the main argument Alvin is presenting against the compatibility of naturalism and evolution?

Alvin argues that naturalism and evolution are logically incompatible because accepting both leads to skepticism about the reliability of cognitive faculties, as evolutionary processes do not prioritize the truth of beliefs but rather adaptive behaviors.

What role do cognitive faculties (memory, perception, intuition) play in Alvin's argument?

Alvin argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, our cognitive faculties (such as memory, perception, and logical intuition) cannot be trusted to reliably reflect truth, as they were shaped by evolutionary pressures to produce adaptive behavior, not necessarily truth.

How does Alvin illustrate his argument using hypothetical creatures on another planet?

Alvin uses the example of creatures on a distant planet to show that if naturalism and evolution are true for them, their behaviors are adaptive, but the truth of their beliefs doesn’t matter for survival. This illustrates how beliefs can be unreliable even if they lead to adaptive behavior.

What does Alvin mean when he says the belief is an 'epiphenomenon'?

Alvin refers to belief as an 'epiphenomenon' to suggest that beliefs are secondary phenomena that arise from neurology and adaptive behavior, but they don’t necessarily correlate with the truth. They exist as byproducts of adaptive processes.

How does Alvin address the concern that adaptive behaviors might still correlate with true beliefs?

Alvin argues that while adaptive behaviors are shaped by neurology, the truth of beliefs is irrelevant to evolutionary processes. Beliefs can be false as long as they lead to adaptive behavior, making it unnecessary for beliefs to be true to ensure survival.

What is Alvin’s conclusion regarding the reliability of cognitive faculties under naturalism and evolution?

Alvin concludes that under naturalism and evolution, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable is low, leading to a 'defeater' for the belief in the reliability of those faculties. This creates a paradox, as we cannot trust our beliefs in the truth of naturalism and evolution.

Why does Alvin think a naturalist must adopt total skepticism?

Alvin suggests that if naturalism and evolution undermine the reliability of cognitive faculties, a naturalist is left with no basis to trust any belief, including the belief in naturalism and evolution itself, leading to total skepticism about all knowledge.

What philosophical concept is Alvin challenging through this argument?

Alvin is challenging the concept of 'reliable cognition' under naturalism and evolution, suggesting that if our cognitive faculties are shaped purely by evolutionary pressures, we cannot trust them to give us true beliefs, which leads to a fundamental skepticism about knowledge itself.