Naturalism and evolution cannot sensibly both be believed.

Thanks Pro. Selecting for truth Pro does little here to refute my objections, but merely restates the argument The misunderstanding here is on Pro’s part. When I mean beliefs, I am speaking of true beliefs. Pro misunderstands my example . What other cause can there be when a man runs away from a tiger. The belief that the tiger is friendly wouldn’t do this. I am stating overall the true beliefs are necessarily tied to the action. Furthermore Pro ignores my other defenses. Such as “An understanding of injury and threat is an a better and more efficient solution than a false belief” and “A proper understanding of the threat is less likely to fail”. Pro does talk a little about my defense of the latter. That selecting for truth is insurance in all situations whereas false beliefs aren’t. Pro responds “Again, whether the belief is false or not is irrelevant so long as the false (or true) belief produces "safe" behavior.” This is a strawman. Pro is narrowly focused on one situation where one belief will cover it. This is also a fallacy of composition. A false belief in one situation doesn’t cover safety in all situation. I am talking about the totality of all beliefs, but Pro is only talking about one. Another example. Let’s assume evolution selects the belief that tigers are friendly to calm a man’s nerves when he is trying to sneak past them. The man doesn’t want to bother the lions as that would be rude. It may help him in that situation, but when a lion wanders into camp, this belief will kill him. A man whose beliefs have been selected for truth, will make him nervous in one situation, but keep him alive in one situation. Objectively true beliefs are better overall, as they will cover you in all situations. By the way everyone, tigers run at about 35-40 mph. You’re still going to die if you run. Cartesian assumptions Pro states these theories are independent on beliefs. This is far from the truth. Each theory makes claims on how beliefs come to be. Cartesian-esque theories would state the belief came from within, whereas a pragmatic theory would state the opposite. It is not circular at all to state a the pragmatic theories of the mind are immune to the EAAN. Pro states “truth is found only through inquiry when the question at hand takes issue with whether or not the very idea of inquiry itself can be trusted” Ironically, this does have Cartesian assumptions. Under a pragmatic theory of the mind beliefs are formed by the environment and can be identified by understanding the environment. As Robbins said “The beliefs of a generically pragmatist mind are only identifiable with reference to what in their holder's environment caused them to form that belief. It is not possible to identify them first and then ask what caused them. Consequently, it is not possible for the content of pragmatist beliefs and what is going on in the world around their holder to vary independently of one another. It is not possible for what they are about and what caused them to be completely different from one another and thus for all of them to be false.” [1] Pro’s rebuttal here stems from a misunderstanding of the argument. Self-Refuting Pro has misunderstood the argument entirely. Pro makes the statement “the argument hinges on whether or not naturalism holds true.” The exact opposite is true. The argument hinges on what the would would be like if the antithesis of naturalism was true. The base of the argument is a reductio that assumes naturalism is false. The argument has nothing to do with the unreliability of cognitive processes, it relies on the reliability of them contra naturalism and points out the self-refuting reasoning behind this. I suggest Pro reread my argument. Pro’s rebuttals have been full of strawmen and misunderstandings. Some of my defenses were ignored by Pro. My arguments remain standing. To Pro. [1] http://infidels.org...