The puzzle arises becasue we can give an evolutionary account of the development of our faculty of reason without having to posit any actual reasons. — Bartricks

What are your thoughts on my view that though, at times, it might be to our advantage to believe falsehoods (e.g. belief in god), evolutionary success (passing down one's genes) is best achieved by being in touch with reality (truths), which is precisely what reason evolved for?

You are confusing the basis upon which we have a reason to believe something with the reason itself.

So, I have the rational impression - or intuition, if one prefers - that I have reason to believe there is a thinker if there are thoughts. And I have the introspective impression that there are thoughts. I conclude that I exist.

None of that was an example of a reason to believe something. it was an example of impressions of reasons to believe things.

A reason to believe something is the 'accuracy' condition of an impression of a reason to believe something (or - and this will be the same - the 'truth condition' of a belief that one has a reason to believe something).

What are your thoughts on my view that though, at times, it might be to our advantage to believe falsehoods (e.g. belief in god) — Agent Smith

I don't know why you added "e.g. belief in God". That belief is TRUE. It's called begging the question: your question assumes the very issue under debate.

THe only solution to the problem I am raising involves positing God.

But anyway, ignoring the question begging bit in the brackets: is it sometimes to our advantage to believe falsehoods? Yes, of course. And it is sometimes moral to believe falsehoods too. I don't see the relevance to the point I am making.

evolutionary success (passing down one's genes) is best achieved by being in touch with reality (truths), which is precisely what reason evolved for? — Agent Smith

But I just explained why that's not true. Some true beliefs will be selected for, and some false ones will be selected for.

Again: if one gives a purely evolutionary account of our development, then approximately accurate beliefs about the lay of the land will be selected for (for those with systematically false beliefs about the lay of the land will get eaten by lions or wander into lakes, which isn't good for one's reproductive chances). But completely false beliefs about reasons to believe things and reasons to do things - such as that there are, in fact, reasons to believe things and reasons to do things - will also get selected for.

Note too that you do not understand what I mean by a purely evolutionary process is you think such a process is 'for' anything. It isn't. It's blind.

You are confusing the basis upon which we have a reason to believe something with the reason itself. — Bartricks

Give me an example of a reason itself. I am asking because I truly do not understand what you mean by a reason.

If you are hungry, do you have reason to get yourself some food?

yes

What is a reason here?

There's your example, then.

A reason to do something - such as get yourself some food - is an example of a reason to do something. And a reason to believe something is a reason to do something, namely believe something.

What is a reason here? — Daniel

This is us:

Daniel: can you provide me with an example of a donut

Me: yes, you see this plump quoit of sugared dough - that's a donut.

Daniel: but where's the donut?

Me: er, I have just shown you a donut. The donut is the plump quoit of sugared dough I just placed in front of you. Let's try again, shall we? Have you ever had a donut?

Daniel: yes

Me: well, that's what a donut is. A donut is one of those things you had when you had a donut

Daniel: but I just want an example of a donut

Me: are you mental?

So, you're saying an evolutionary explanation for rationality is of the debunking kind i.e. that we're rational doesn't mean there are reasons (for believing/disbelieving things).

I like where you're going with this, but what's your argument? You don't offer one.

So, you're saying an evolutionary explanation for rationality is of the debunking kind i.e. that we're rational doesn't mean there are reasons (for believing/disbelieving things). — Agent Smith

No. I am arguing - not saying, arguing - that a purely evolutionary account of our development will debunk our impressions and beliefs in reasons to do and believe things. (Note I do not know what you mean by rationality and I did not mention it; I take 'rationality' to involve a disposition to recognize and respond to reasons. If that's correct, then someone can be rational even if there are no reasons, for it is sufficient to be rational that one 'would' have recognized and responding to any reasons that there were).

And I argued this by showing how we can explain how creatures who got the impression of such things would be selected for by a process of evolution by natural selection without having to posit any actual reasons to do or believe anything.

If you explain why a person believes something without positing the object of the belief, then the explanation debunks the belief.

I gave you examples of this. If we can explain why a person believes in God without positing God himself, then the belief is debunked if that explanation is correct.

So if you want the argument laid out more formally, here it is:

1. If the correct explanation of why a person believes x does not involve positing x, then that person's belief in x is debunked.
2. If a purely evolutionary explanation of our development is true, then the correct explanation of why any person believes there are reasons to believe things does not involve positing any reasons to believe things.
3. Therefore, if a purely evolutionary explanation of our development is true, then a person's belief in reasons to believe things is debunked.

If I don't eat, the cells that make me will lack the nutrients required for the normal functioning of the molecular processes that maintain such cells alive - that is, I will die. By the way, the reason we eat is not to feel full or feel some kind of pleasure, we eat to give our cells what they require for their normal functioning. Same reason we drink water. We feel hunger because our cells have developed a mechanism to alert us that we need to provide our cells with nutrients, or we die! (a mechanism that evolved many thousand years ago - bacteria eat and they have molecular mechanisms that alert them to eat).
That need to go and grab something to eat, like that delicious donut, that need that makes you get up from your chair and down the stairs, that need that makes you think of that marvellous, fluffy, juicy donut, that need is part of a molecular process (there is no denying that). The molecular process that makes you feel hungry has evolved because (among other reasons) without the nutrients you acquire through eating, you would not be able to maintain those functions that allow you to reproduce. Those thoughts you call a reason to eat are a consequence of your body communicating to your brain that you need to eat.

Yours is an argument by example which, if memory serves, is a fallacy.

Nevertheless, your thesis is an intriguing one to say the least.

It, however, is self-refuting if you notice, as it undermines all reason and hence, even your own and out the window goes your theistic conclusion.

This, to your credit, is a new take on an idea as old as the mountains viz. skepticism.

Did you read the thread Banno started about 6 moons ago on logical nihilism. There's a recorded lecture in which the speaker, a lady, says of skepticism of the Agrippa kind that there's something seriously flawed about a system of reasoning that self-destructs in the sense we can formulate an argument within it that exposes the system's Achilles' heel so to speak.

Reasons-to-believe things are directives. Directives need a director. The director needs to be a person. — Bartricks

This is nonsense.

You're just describing processes.
You asked for an example of a reason to do something - I provided it.
An unassisted evolutionary story about how we have come to be, will not make any mention of any actual reasons to do anything. The disposition to believe in them, yes. Their actual existence, no.
Thus, an evolutionary story undermines itself. It needs assistance if it is not to do that.

Yours is an argument by example which, if memory serves, is a fallacy. — Agent Smith

What fallacy? I'm illustrating a point. That's not to commit a fallacy.

If the explanation of why you hold a particular belief does not make any appeal to the actual existence of the object of that belief (so, what the belief is 'about'), then the belief is debunked by the explanation.

I then provided examples of this to illustrate the point. For example, if the explanation of why people believe in gods is that a disposition to believe in such things made them more reproductively successful, then those beliefs are debunked, for the explanation of why people are forming them makes no mention of any gods.

So, once again: if an explanation of a belief does not appeal to the reality of what the belief is about, then the belief is debunked.

Another example, this time of a vindicatory explanation. The explanation of why I believe there's a cat in my garden is that there's a cat in my garden. That explanation makes mention of the object of my beilef. Thus the belief is not discredited by the explanation, but vindicated.

If the explanation of why I believe there's a cat in my garden is that I have just been hypnotized into believing it, then the explanation makes no mention of a cat in my garden and thus in this case the belief would be debunked.

It, however, is self-refuting if you notice, as it undermines all reason and hence, even your own and out the window goes your theistic conclusion. — Agent Smith

No, what I am doing is showing that an exclusive evolutionary explanation of our situation is self-undermining.

Argue something.

Are you saying the reason one gets hungry is not a lack of nutrients but instead an idea given by god to those organisms that feel a need to eat?

No. You are confusing different meanings of the word 'reason'.

Sometimes the word reason can operate as a synonym for 'cause'.

But that's not what it means when we use to denote a reason to do something.

A reason to do something is called a normative reason. The normativity is the 'to do-ness'. It's sometimes expressed by saying that normative reasons direct. That is, to have a reason to do something is to be in some sense 'directed' to do it.

Note, these statements do not mean the same thing; "I have a reason to get myself some food" and "I am being caused to get myself some food".

An evolutionary explanation of how we have come to be will make no mention of any normative reasons. And thus it is self-undermining. But it will make mention of causes. So I am not arguing that an evolutionary explanation debunks the idea that there are causes of things. I am arguing that an evolutionary explanation debunks the idea that there are reasons to do things.

The molecular machinery that keeps cells alive gets worn with time. It does not last forever and needs to be replaced. New molecules are made of nutrients obtained from the external world (or recycled nutrients). How do you know that the molecules needed to keep your cells alive are getting old and that you need to replace them? how do you know if you have enough nutrients to replace those old molecules? how do you know if you need to acquire nutrients from the external world? How do you think you get that sensation of hunger?

The kinds of reasons you talk about are being caused. They are outcomes. That which you call a reason to do something is an outcome of a process and not what initiates a process. They are ends.

In other words, I think I am alive not because there are reasons to be alive but because by being alive I have come up with reasons to believe I am.

The molecular machinery that keeps cells alive gets worn with time. It does not last forever and needs to be replaced. New molecules are made of nutrients obtained from the external world (or recycled nutrients). How do you know that the molecules needed to keep your cells alive are getting old and that you need to replace them? how do you know if you have enough nutrients to replace those old molecules? how do you know if you need to acquire nutrients from the external world? How do you think you get that sensation of hunger? — Daniel

Irrelevant. I refer you to my earlier reply.

The kinds of reasons you talk about are being caused. They are outcomes. That which you call a reason to do something is an outcome of a process and not what initiates a process. They are ends. — Daniel

Irrelevant.

In other words, I think I am alive not because there are reasons to be alive but because by being alive I have come up with reasons to believe I am. — Daniel

You're just not getting this.

This is not about causes. It's about reasons-to-do things. You are just going to continue talking about causes, yes? You're attacking a straw man. I am not arguing that evolutionary explanations force us to conclude that there are no causes.

Ok. Forgive me. I mean well. The thing is that I just cannot understand what you mean by reasons-to-do things. It seems to me that in your mind you picture these reasons-to-do things as...... what? Are they pleasures, needs, wants, or what? Could you explain in other words what you mean by reasons-to-do. Describe them to me as if I was an alien from a far far away world threatening to end life on Earth and its destiny depends on how well I understand your term.

Also, what is a reason to go a get some food.

So you do not yourself believe there are reasons to do things?

But to me they are rooted in natural processes. A reason to do anything is an invention of a mind.

It's a reason to get some food.

Like I say, this exchange is like this:

You: what's a chair?

Me: well, what are you sat on?

You: a chair

Me: right, so one of those

You: I just don't know what you mean by a chair though. Can you give me an example of a chair?

Me: I just did. You are sat on a chair, are you not?

You: yes.

Me: so that's a char

You: so do you mean a lamp?

Me: no.

You: I don't know what you mean then. Do you mean a cat?

Me: no. I mean a chair. Do you know what a chair is?

You: yes.

Me: so one of those.

You: but what's a chair?

And on and on and on.

Look, are you auditioning for the mad hatter's tea party or something? Don't ask me what a reason to do something is when you can't be bothered to read the reply.