Naturalism and evolution cannot sensibly both be believed.

I'll jump right in to the argument: Given naturalism, our beliefs or opinions can be said to be material. Any belief we hold can be simplified to a set of neuron signals working from the brain. Keep in mind that evolution selects for the best fit behaviors. There appears to be a connection between these "beliefs" or neuron signals in the brain, and our corresponding behavior, or actions. For example, my belief that it is raining outside might correspond to an impulse that causes me to put on a jacket before leaving the house. However, it does not matter if I believe it is raining outside. All that matters, in terms of evolution, is that I put on the jacket before leaving the house. In other words, let"s say I held the belief that it was warm outside. So long as the neurological impulse is the same as in the last case, I will still be caused to go and put the jacket on. What we can gather from this is that the content of our beliefs are irrelevant in the process of evolution. Whether I belief it is hot outside or raining outside, so long as the belief causes the behavior of going to put the jacket on, my evolutionary fitness will benefit. But if evolution is only concerned with our behaviors, then what use are our beliefs? What reason do we have to trust our cognitive faculties if in fact evolution is indifferent to them? Keep these questions in mind. Now, if it is the case that evolution is concerned only with behavior and not with belief, then we can assume that any given belief we hold is just as likely false as it is true. So, this would mean each belief has a 50.0% chance of being true. Now let us consider all of our beliefs. Let"s say, for simplicity"s sake, that we each hold 500 individual beliefs. In order to calculate statistically that these beliefs are true, we must multiply together their individual probabilities. When the 50% probability is multiplied a number of times in order to represent the number of our beliefs (in this example 500) we arrive at an extremely small number (<.001) even if we give a reliability factor of, let"s say, 75% (meaning only " of our beliefs need to actually be true in order for us to trust the reliability of our cognitive faculties. ) So if the chances of our cognitive faculties being reliable are so extremely low given both evolution and naturalism, why should anyone trust any of the beliefs that come from these faculties? This poses a significant problem for those who affirm that the theory of evolution is true, but also affirm that naturalism (which would entail our beliefs being purely material) is true. The argument can be summarized in this form: 1) The probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution is low. 2) Anyone who affirms both naturalism and evolution and sees that the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution has a defeater for the reliability of their cognitive faculties. 3) Anyone who has a defeater for their cognitive faculties has a defeater for any belief he thinks he has (this would include the beliefs regarding naturalism and evolution. ) 4) Anyone who affirms naturalism and evolution has a defeater for naturalism and evolution. 5) Therefore, the belief in both naturalism and evolution is self-defeating and cannot sensibly be accepted.