Evolution of Religion and Naturalism

[wgreen]

If morality (altruism, etc.) and religion evolved, and so are not accurate reflections of reality, only evolutionarily expedient trends, then isn't it true that the same could be true about naturalism? Is it not the case that naturalism has evolved in the same way and so should be subject to the same skepticism from the evolutionist?

Of course, the above question presumes that religion and philosophies like naturalism are linked to evolution through genetics and natural selective processes.

This wuestion is not about arguments from the evolutionary origins of morality and religion. I think these ideas are well established in the evolutionary scientific community. Sociobiologists speak of the evolution of altruism, for example. rather, the question assumes this to be the case and asks if naturalism (or materialism, if you will) is subject to the same skepticism that results: i.e. since evolution is not an optimizing process, but based on contingencies, then there is no reason that psychological tendencies resulting from this process are accurate reflections of reality.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Green

[Goat]

Evolution *is* an optimizing process, yet comes about as result of a series of contingencies.

Evolution is not an optimizing process. It does not produce the optimum solution to a problem, it only selects for the best solution presented to it at the time by random processes.

Many evolutionists have pointed out, in arguing against design, that the design features of many animals are flawed and less than optimum.

This means that an evolutionarily produced solution does not represent the optimum, only a randomly produced "solution" that worked in a particular circumstance.

You are both right and wrong. It is an optimizing process, since it produces the best available to it at the time by random process. Then, in the next iteration, it does the same thing. Over many generations, it comes closer and closer to the 'optimal' solution.

What you have is a process. The more 'optimal' solutions of what is availavble being selected for, and then variations on that solution in the next iteration (generation of individuals).

[juliod]

If I could return to the original question...

Is it not the case that naturalism has evolved in the same way and so should be subject to the same skepticism from the evolutionist?

Yes, you are right. In socio-philosophical terms, naturlism evolved in the same way that all other ways-of-thinking evolved, includign religions, philosophies, pop-psychology, new-age movements, etc.

And any logical person should agree that in a utilitarian sense there is no reson to think naturalism should be the best solution to the problems facing any society. Indeed that is self-evident since no society is universally naturalist.

Furthermore, there is no a priori reason to assume naturalism is true. If we lived in the world of the Lord of the Rings or the Chronicles of Narnia then naturalism would be a false doctrine.

By and large, most naturalists believe in naturalism because it is the one way-of-thinking that is supported by all the evidence, while all other WOTs conflict more or less completely with the evidence.

I don't want there to be naturalists who believe because of psychological reasons, or because they were taught it as a child, or because their social position depends on it. I also want, for myself, to cease to be a naturalist as soon as there is good evidence that naturalism is false.

We know without doubt that people beleive false things. No matter how way-out the idea, no matter how easily or fully falsified the claim is, there will still be people believing in it. Religions, collectively, are way-out ideas. False beliefs are so common that we need some explaation for them. Utilitarianist explanations seem pretty good. People believe in false things because they get something out of it. This might also be true of naturalism if we existed in Narnia or other magical realm.

All that being said, we should expect the uncovering of truth to be an evolutionary process, as opposed to a revelatory one. We would expect to approach truth in an asymptotic manner, correcting, revising, changing, but at every step getting closer and closer to a true and complete understanding (even if our understanding could never be truely complete ). And this would be true even if getting closer to the truth does not help (or does posatively hinder) a society. That's what we observe with naturalism. It's also what we fail to observe with any other way-of-thinking.

DanZ

[QED]

Using this analogy, if we load a sieve with randomly sized stones, there is nothing "essentially random" about what comes out the other side. I think you've been focusing on the wrong component here.

Maybe this is a difference of semantics. Randomness is a tough issue to begin with. I think that the stone sizes are still essentially random, though I agree they are not completely so.

OK, and you've also made the point that the input set is a random subset of all possible input sets -- but again I say you're still focusing on the wrong component. If the sieve selects for a specific parameter then any output will get to be so specified. Of course this is a process not an instantaneous reaction but it is convergent all the same.

Most of the time we are talking about sources of order in many of the discussions here and I think this one is no different. By concentrating on the selection criteria we see the source of order in the "natural" world. This is a very large world as it includes a large variety of criteria. In the case of philosophical naturalism the criteria is essentially "anything that works on an industrial scale". I always (half) joke that if there was anything to supernaturalism the Pentagon would have militarized it already.

I think this element of pragmatism underscores the Naturalist quest and yes, it has led to the evolution of a particular approach -- but it's a convergent approach that is ordered by whatever underlying physical reality actually exists. I hasten to add that we are likely to be stuck with an incomplete account of any such underlying physical reality by dint of our unprivileged observational location. But then you already knew that

[The Persnickety Platypus]

What are you saying here? I agree with the first part, where you seem to be saying that we cannot build an objective view of the world, but I'm not sure how you think that repeating experiments solves this problem.

Nothing solves the problem. If we want an objective answer to *any* nature of reality, our only option is to morph into supernatural dietys.

What I am saying is that personally re-examining our view of reality (hence experimenting) is our only way of verifying that said realty.

Maybe naturalism is totally bunk, as you imply. The only way we will ever know this is by continually questioning and testing our conclusions.

Are you saying that all possible mutations have actually occurred in the past and that the individuals with those mutation have survived to reproduce and establish populations that avoided accidental extinction (that is, extinction not due to lack of fitness related to the gene in question)?

What I am saying is that natural selection chooses the best-fit traits in any given organism. Period.

If there were a "greater intelligence" gene, and it in fact proved more apt to human needs, then it would survive natural selection.

So let's say some mother somewhere gives birth to a wonder-child graced with hyper-intelligent mutations, but a comet strikes his college dorm room when he is four years old- much before he was able to pass on his genes. One factor that you are neglecting to consider is that most mutations re-occcur within a species on a certain mathematic frequency. Therefore, sooner or later, we will be looking at these same mutations in another blessed little lad.

Case in point; the trait denoting dark skin probably did not occur in just one special primitive human living in Africa however many thousands of years ago. The trait arose in many individuals in response to the tropical conditions of that area (black skin has certain advantages in moist climates, apparently). Assuming that the conditions facing modern humans do not alter considerably, the factors responsible for the rise of this theoretical hyper-intelligent gene will continue to affect modern humans, causing the trait to re-occur.

This theoretical gene leading to an enlightened state of mind involving naturalistic principles, if it is truely advantageous, will rise again, whether we want it to or not.

Basicly, my point is this: humans are currently as naturally capable as it is physically possible for us to be. Natural selection has made sure of that.

Maybe this is a difference of semantics. Randomness is a tough issue to begin with. I think that the stone sizes are still essentially random, though I agree they are not completely so.

.....

However, the stone sizes are still random in the sense that the initial set was not designed nor produced by any organizing process. they are still random with respect to the exhaustive set of all possible sizes.

Likewise with natural selection. The final product (set of characteristics) is less random than the input set, but the set of input characteristics was still a randomly produced set. That is, it was not exhaustive and nor was it ordered in any way.

I don't believe anything in nature is random. Nature is perfect, concise, and strictly deterministic- the only reason many people view it as "random" is that we (as a race) have limited understanding of all the specific factors that give rise to complex environmental phenomena.

Trace your stone/sieve analogy backwards. The stone sizes could *never* have been random, because each size of stone in the selection was pegged from another sieve of it's own.

Let me expand this analogy. This time, instead of using stones to represent traits, and sieves to represent environmental conditions selecting the best suited traits, I will use the traits and environmental conditions themselves, and trace the lineage of hypothetical species "A b":

*First organism of the genus "A" and species "B" arises*
|
|
\/
Trait1, Trait2, or Trait3
\/
Trait2 wins
new traits= Trait4 and Trait5
Trait2, Trait4, or Trait5
\/
Trait4 wins.


(hope that makes some sense- the forum's inability to indent makes diagram drawing especially difficult)


Follow the evolutionary process ad infinitum. No trait occurs randomly- each is chosen specifically by it's own environmental "sieve".

But what about the environmental conditions themselves- do they occur randomly? No. Moist, mountainous rainforests with rivers running through them (for example) come about by a conglomeration of factors. They could be moist because of the local wind patterns and ocean currents, mountainous because of a colliding of plates, and abundant in running water because water from an adjacent lake overflows during heavy rain and has cut it's way down a downward grade. The wind patterns, plate collisions, and water overflows occur in accordance to their own set of determining factors, and so on and so on.

From our POV, The world may seem chaotic, but at the core of it all is order and perfection, all originating on the sub-atomic level.