DO FALSE BELIEFS PROMOTE SURVIVABILITY?
I have always taken my good memory for granted. Remembering names, dates, and facts has always been easy for me, particularly when it comes to history, philosophy, and sports. I have always wanted to be a contestant on such shows as Jeopardy! or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? If I got a difficult science question, I could simply phone my friend Hugh Ross!
However, in the last couple of years I have noticed that I have to work harder to keep my memory sharp. Hitting the half-century mark I am becoming more aware of the need to flex my cognitive faculties regularly and to pay greater heed to things like diet, exercise, and dealing effectively with stress.
It was painful for me to watch my father’s memory fade in the last few years of his life. In talking with him about his World War II experiences he struggled to remember more and more of the details.
I recently watched a television program on PBS entitled “Living Better, Longer” hosted by UCLA’s aging and memory expert, Dr. Gary Small. Small did a great job of conveying practical ways to confront the challenges posed by an aging brain and mind.
One of the things he discussed has direct apologetic implications. According to Small, optimists live longer than pessimists. So to develop a more positive outlook on life he recommends that people consider adopting some form of spirituality. Spirituality could include some form of meditation and/or prayer. However, he also specifically mentioned “belief in God.” According to Small, there are scientific studies:
Showing that belief in God is associated with better health outcomes in some situations.
He also indicated that belief in God has been linked to longer life expectancy. In fact, one study done a few years ago indicated that:
People who attend a house of worship one day a week actually had a seven year longer life expectancy.
The results of these studies appear to conflict with the position of naturalistic evolution (which is atheistic in belief). How so?
Assume the position of naturalistic evolution:
- Life began on this planet purely naturalistically (no God or gods exist).
- Evolution is the mechanism that explains the development of complex life.
- Evolution is driven according to the survivability of a species.
- Evolution is responsible for people’s belief in God (an evolutionary defect according to atheist Richard Dawkins).
- Belief in God (though in reality a false belief, and even pernicious in nature according to Dawkins) nevertheless promotes survivability (or at least a longer life span).
Conclusion: False beliefs may at times promote the survivability of a species more than true beliefs.
Problem: If evolution can cause a person to believe that which is false in order to promote survivability, then how can a person trust that evolution will give true beliefs about the world? And if evolution can’t guarantee true beliefs in a person’s mind, then how does one know that one’s belief in evolution is a true belief about the world?
Distinguished Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued similarly that unguided evolution serves as a defeater for the worldview of naturalism.
Most atheistic naturalists that I have talked with or read say they embrace their particular worldview because their secular perspective more closely matches with reality. But given their commitment to naturalistic evolution, how can they ever be sure that their beliefs about reality are actually true?
For more on the study of evolutionary naturalism, see chapter 12 of my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Hi. I just stumbled on your site, and I thought I’d leave a comment.
You wrote, “Problem: If evolution can cause a person to believe that which is false in order to promote survivability, then how can a person trust that evolution will give true beliefs about the world? And if evolution can’t guarantee true beliefs in a person’s mind, then how does one know that one’s belief in evolution is a true belief about the world?”
I think this is the heart of your post, so let me focus on it first. Let’s outline your argument.
1. Evolution happened as outlined in the five points you gave.
2. Evolution can select for persons with false beliefs about reality, because all that matters is surviving (and may I add reproducing).
3. Therefore, evolution has caused humans to have unreliable brains/minds, that is, unreliable in gaining knowledge.
Hopefully I have faithfully represented your argument. Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood.
So, assuming we accept this argument, what can we derive from it?
The argument is self defeating. Since our minds are unreliable, we have no guarantee that this argument holds at all. It might be some figment of your (and my) imagination, made up so Christians can hold on to their beneficial theistic beliefs.
For the argument to hold, the version of naturalist evolution given has to be true. No naturalistic evolution equals no argument at all. Period. So, although the Christian’s belief is beneficial, it’s also false.
Those who believe in naturalistic evolution are correct. They simply can’t be guaranteed they’re correct.
So, if this argument has “direct apologetic implications” then the implication is this: apologists are wrong, but no harm because Christianity is more beneficial. This would be a cynical position to hold.
Here are some other miscellaneous comments:
You said, “Evolution is driven according to the survivability of a species.” I’m no expert, but this smacks of group selection, which is out of favor among biologist. The primary unit, as it were, of evolution is the gene, not the species. Genes, and the bodies that genes build, that survive and reproduce the best in the given environment will be selected for.
When Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett talk about the evolution of religious beliefs, they are talking about memetic evolution, not biological evolution. I see no reason why memetic evolution, if true, would affect the reliability of our physical brains. Besides, many people, who accept biological evolution as true, are not convinced about the whole meme business. It’s a very young idea that hasn’t been fully tested. Dennett even says this in his book “Breaking the Spell”. I’m extremely skeptical of memetics. So, your argument is not cogent to me, because I don’t think religions evolve like biological creatures evolve.
Regardless of whether or not evolution happened, or whether or not there is a personal creator God, I think that our minds are unreliable to a degree. They’re reliable enough to have aided in our species domination of this planet, but it’s too easy to be wrong, too easy to be in error. This fact is undeniable. To err is human, so it is said. Because of this I believe that skepticism is the best position to hold and that critical thinking is to be learned and applied everywhere. I used to be an evangelical Christian, but now I consider myself a pantheist. Can I ever be sure my beliefs about reality are true? No. Maybe my deconversion was a big costly mistake. But no one is exempt from this. No one can be 100% sure their beliefs about reality are true. So, I think the argument is moot at best, special pleading at worst.
I’ll leave with this thought: Don’t believe everything that any political leader, religious teacher, scientist, TV ad, book, website, movie, etc. says. I look forward to your reply. Thanks
September 10th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Thanks for the comment, Chris. I want to focus on one of your sentences, as follows:
You say that those who believe in naturalistic evolution are correct, but that they simply cannot “be guaranteed they’re correct.” Might not the same be said about theism generally, and Christianity specifically?
By the way, I totally agree with your last paragraph, which is particularly timely in this run up to the presidency.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
When I said that those who believe in evolution are correct, but are not guaranteed to be correct, that was under the assumptions of the argument I quoted in the original posts. If we want to talk about the consequences of evolution producing unreliable brains/minds, then we have to assume evolution happened. Under those assumptions Christianity is incorrect about how life formed on Earth, at least.
Outside of the those assumptions, I don’t unequivocally claim that Christianity is wrong. So, I’d say Christianity and/or theism could be correct, but no one can be 100% sure either way.