Kantian Naturalist writes that almost all naturalists (including, presumably, himself) believe selection tends to favor true beliefs.
I don’t know why he would say this, because Neo-Darwinian Evolution (“NDE”) posits that selection favors characters that increase fitness as measured by relative reproductive fecundity. Per NDE, selection is indifferent the truth. It will select for a false belief if, for whatever reason, that belief increases fitness.
Now the naturalist might say that it is obvious that true belief must increase fitness more than false belief. Is it obvious? Consider the conundrum of religious belief from an NDE perspective:
1. By definition the naturalist believes religious belief is false.
2. The overwhelming majority of people throughout history have held religious belief.
3. Therefore, the naturalist must believe that the overwhelming majority of humans throughout history have held a false belief.
4. It follows that natural selection selected for a belief that the naturalist is convinced is false.
We can set to one side the question of whether a particular religious belief is actually false. The naturalist, by definition, believes they all are, and therefore he must believe that natural selection selected for a belief he thinks is false.
What is the naturalist to do? Indeed, if the naturalist concedes that natural selection at least sometimes selects for false beliefs, how can he have any confidence in his own conviction that naturalism itself is true?
Appeals to “the evidence” won’t save the naturalist here. Both sides of the religion issue appeal to evidence.