Hate Mail

Darwin famously, or perhaps not famously enough said 

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?*

Which debunking would apply to all areas of human thought, science, mathematics, even logic.   While I don't buy all of his conclusions or even all of his methods,** Alvin Plantinga has made a good argument in this area giving the atheist-materialist-"naturalist" a choice, either they can believe in natural selection, with all of the usefulness that theory has been for the promotion of atheism or they can have the very mental faculties they constructed natural selection with and including LITERALLY EVERY OTHER PART OF HUMAN CULTURE, what they like as well as what they don't like, which natural selection, like all materialist-atheist theory seems, rather quickly, to undercut and erode. 

Atheism is, at its core, a destructive ideological preference, it is based in denying possibilities, denying the capacity of people who believe what they don't like to possibly be right.  It is not constructive.   Materialism can only be true if it is false. A culture of materialism cannot but erode the felt necessity to tell the truth, it is destructive of the founding truths of traditional American democracy, even the truncated list given by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. 

*  I have a far higher view of animal minds than Darwin did or is typical of conventional Darwinists.   I don't, though, believe such minds are a product of natural selection, I think natural selection is a class-based delusion which will, eventually, be set aside as not very helpful for the understanding of evolution.   It has certainly had disastrous consequences for the human species through eugenics and an enhanced form of scientific racism, sexism and class inequality.

** One thing I've heard Plantinga say that I don't agree with is that a theorized belief that could "succeed" in producing more offspring, which is the only thing that natural selection deals with, has a 50-50 chance of being true or false.  I think it has a far higher chance of being false than true because truth has a far narrower scope of possible form than those many ways in which an idea can be false.   Somewhere I read someone point out that Mormonism in all of its bizarre, ahistorical, con-man created nonsense encourages Mormons to reproduce at a far higher than average rate.   In terms of natural selection their false beliefs are wildly successful, no matter how false they are.