The Limits of Our World

Is there more to life than matter and molecules?

C. N. Vujanovic

IS WHAT WE SEE ALL THAT EXISTS?

Naturalism is a worldview that solely believes in the material. Nothing outside of what we can physically interact with exists. Is this worldview viable though? Does it make sense to the world we interact with and live in?

I honestly don’t think so, and so I will propose one of my favourite arguments against Naturalism to critique Naturalism.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism 

Coined by Alvin Plantinga, a famous American Christian philosopher, this argument demonstrates that if you believe in Naturalism, it is impossible to know anything.

The argument goes something like this: 

Premise 1: Humans, we assume that we can know ‘things’, however, we have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years via natural selection (evolution). 

Premise 2: Those who evolved, evolved because they survived. In other words, evolution selects for survivability. 

Conclusion: When we develop arguments, we assume our brains lead us to truthful conclusions. However, under Naturalism, this is not true because our brains instead form conclusions that help us survive (remember Premise 2, our brains are wired for survivability, not logic). Therefore, the naturalist must either reject naturalism or evolution. Otherwise, any argument you make will not be tenable. Now, I don’t think many people would reject evolution as it is accepted by the whole scientific community, so it appears one must reject Naturalism.

One objection to the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is that just because conclusions are based on survivability, that does not mean that the conclusions will not align with the truth. And I mean, sure, but even if there are only a few cases when survivability does not equal truth, then you cannot believe any conclusions as it will be impossible to differentiate between a conclusion from truth and a conclusion from survivability. 

For instance, consider a belief in certain superstitions that may promote group cohesion, enhancing survivability. For instance, early human societies might have developed a superstition that performing a specific ritual dance before hunting might have ensured success. While this belief improved the chances of survival, it did not correspond to the actual truth of what influences hunting success. 

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism raises concerns about the reliability of our cognitive faculties when they are shaped by evolutionary processes aimed at enhancing survivability. While it is possible that many beliefs that aid survival also align with the truth, there are notable counter-examples where survival-based beliefs diverge from reality. These instances demonstrate the difficulty in differentiating between beliefs grounded in truth and those rooted in evolutionary advantages. 

Now, this is just one reason I do not hold to Naturalism, but there are many others. I challenge you to consider what you believe. Do not just accept what seems easy, but consider what makes sense in the world. And, for me, Naturalistic evolution does not make sense of the world.