Ep. 85: Cosmic Morality

[Agnostie]

Regarding the issue of the brain/mind discussion, I wanted to discuss a bit more.

1) The identity of the brain is different than the mind. Just because they are connected doesn't make them the same thing.

2) How much does a thought weigh, measure, or move? None, so it is different than the brain. You said the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater could be found in the brain. But this is simply not true. You may be able to destroy the ability or distort the ability of the person to think by poisoning a certain section of the brain with chemicals or electrodes but you cannot create the thought itself.

Tony, you seem to be missing my point. I didn't say the mind and the brain are the same thing, I said you can't have a mind without a brain. Asking how much does a thought weigh, measure or move cannot be answered as "None". We know there are numerous electro-chemical processes at work in the brain when someone has a thought. Just because we don't yet have an instrument or method to measure the precise attributes of a thought does not mean it has none. We can see brain activity and we know how energy hungry the brain is. If you have ever worked at a job where you have to do a lot of calculations and thinking, then you know how exhausted you can get just from thinking. Thinking is a natural process that happens within the brain. The brain is extremely complex and is constantly re-mapping itself, so a snapshot of your brain today will be different than your brain tomorrow.

3) The thought of the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater is a private thought. You cannot look into someone else's brain and find it in there. The mind is completely private. But the brain can be measured, investigated thoroughly by a third party. A person could be deaf but know all the scientific knowledge there is about sound, hearing, energies and all of that. But it is different to know that and to know what sound, sounds like.

4) A person/mind cannot be wrong about their own thoughts. Yet a researcher can be wrong about the brain when studying it. So, with the mind, the person has firsthand knowledge and is incorrigible. But a person can be wrong about the brain.

The mind is currently private, who knows someday this may not be the case, science may advance to the point to be able to project your thoughts so that others may view them, personally I hope it never gets that far.
The mind is wrong a lot of the time. Memories are known to be easily changed over time and people remember events wrong. Have you never heard the expression, "My mind is playing tricks on me"? The mind gets things wrong all the time, if a person is worried or scared they can imagine all sorts of things that are not actually happening.

5) Subjective states are not physical. Knowledge of things, places, ideas, emotions, stories are not material, yet are real.

6) Intentionality is not Physical. You plan, make up a story, have relationships with people. But physical things cannot have intentionality.

7) Personhood is self aware. You know you exist, even if all other things are an illusion.

Not having a complete understanding how the brain operates, what electro-chemical process or neuron is responsible for emotions, stories, or self awareness does not mean the mind is some magical thing that is separate from the physical brain and can exist without the brain. That is jumping to unfounded conclusions.

For these and other reasons, it is more rational to believe that minds exist, are not physical but immaterial and reflect the actual real category of a real state of reality.

[/quote]
Yes I agree that minds exist, however they cannot exist without their physical brains. The physical processes of the brain generates the mind. No brain, no mind period. Are you really going to argue that the mind can exist without the brain?

[Agnostie]

With everything that we know about how the brain works, if God was to be a person like us then he would have to have a brain.

Nonsense. God is a spiritual being. He created the laws of physics because this was indeed necessary for the process of life and thus to create finite persons with free will, not because personhood itself requires it. He already created the angels as purely spiritual beings and they are persons if not quite with the same freedom of will that we have.

Otherwise he is some invisible breath of air that has the functions someone with a brain has.

God is invisible and intangible with respect to the mathematical laws of physics and the way that they make things visible and tangible, because those laws do not bind Him or have anything to do with His existence. But in reality it is the physical that is artificial. It is like the difference between our world and a simulated world in some massive multiplayer online role playing game. It is the spirit that is the reality and the physical that is much more like a simulation.

Speaking of nonsense, you know God is an invisible spiritual being how exactly? You know that the angels are purely spiritual beings as well? You must have a different Bible than the rest of us. I seem to recall a story of Moses talking with God face to face as a man talks with his friend. I also recall the stories of the angels taking women as wives and their offspring being giants. I also recall the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanting to have relations with angels. You had better make sure the ladies you know keep their heads covered so the angels (purely spiritual beings) don't get them, as the sound advice from the New Testament teaches, the sight of a womans uncovered head is irresistible to angels you know.

[tonyenglish7]

Agnostie,

Yes I agree that minds exist, however they cannot exist without their physical brains. The physical processes of the brain generates the mind. No brain, no mind period. Are you really going to argue that the mind can exist without the brain?

You are making a simple assertion, how do you know that is true? The discussion is about the dualistic nature of the mind and how it is not simply the brain. You can call it an emergent property of the brain but even then, it is not equal with the brain. So, we as created beings seem to be tied to a brain, but it is not clear that minds always need a brain. With the case of God, he as the ability to interact with all persons and matter without a physical brain. Yet we are limited beings and have limited power to use our own brain and body, nothing else. But it is the mind that is using the body, not the other way around.

There are a lot of "out of body experiences", and other metaphysical experiences that people have claimed to have, and if true, their brains were dead or elsewhere at the time. But all the arguments I listed show that at the very minimum, the brain and the mind are not the same thing and even though connected, the category "Mind" is a real category of reality and as such can be used for evaluating truth... so mind, rational entities, and matter exist.... What explains the origin of the universe? Only the first category is adequate.

[Lawrence]

You are making a simple assertion, how do you know that is true?

You're making the opposite assertion. The brain->mind solution is at least in agreement with what we know. There has never been a mind without a brain.

The discussion is about the dualistic nature of the mind and how it is not simply the brain. You can call it an emergent property of the brain but even then, it is not equal with the brain.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this.

So, we as created beings seem to be tied to a brain, but it is not clear that minds always need a brain.

It's not clear? Can you give an example of conflicting evidence?

But it is the mind that is using the body, not the other way around.

Really it is the genes that are using the body (and therefore the mind) to reproduce. Something they're failing at in my case .

There are a lot of "out of body experiences", and other metaphysical experiences that people have claimed to have, and if true, their brains were dead or elsewhere at the time.

But that's just not very good evidence. I forgot the name of that massive out-of-body experience experiment that is going on. They should be publishing their results in the near future.

But all the arguments I listed show that at the very minimum, the brain and the mind are not the same thing and even though connected,

Again, nobody is disagreeing with that.

the category "Mind" is a real category of reality and as such can be used for evaluating truth... so mind, rational entities, and matter exist.... What explains the origin of the universe? Only the first category is adequate.

You haven't really given an argument for this yet.

[mitchellmckain]

Speaking of nonsense,

Just because you do not understand something or believe it does not make it nonsense.

Whether something exists, how you can know that it exists, and whether you can objectively establish that it exists are all completely different questions from whether something is nonsense.

you know God is an invisible spiritual being how exactly? You know that the angels are purely spiritual beings as well?

Yes absolutely. That is the traditional understanding because it is what fits all the descriptions in the experiences of people and in the stories of the Bible. It certainly seems to be what the writers of the New Testament have concluded.

You must have a different Bible than the rest of us.

I don't know what Bible you have but the one I have has a book entitled "The Gospel according to John" and in chapter 4 verse 24 it says, "God is spirit, and thos who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth", and a book entitled "The Letter to the Hebrews" and the last two verses of the 1st chapter is as follows: "But to what angel has He ever said, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet'? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?"

I certainly don't claim that just because a book says something then that makes it so, but you were asking about what sort of Bible I have. What sort of Bible do you have? Or do you even have one at all? Or if you have one, then have you read it?

I seem to recall a story of Moses talking with God face to face as a man talks with his friend.

Sure. I guess you somehow think it is impossible to speak to a spiritual being face to face as a man talks with his friend. It is not spiritual things that are limited in what they can do but only physical things.

I also recall the stories of the angels taking women as wives and their offspring being giants.

Yes that is a very bizarre creationist interpretation of Genesis chapter 6 which just shows to what lengths people will bend over backwards into complete absurdity to make some passages mean what they want it to mean. Everywhere else in the Bible, the "sons of God" refer not to angels but to God's chosen people and there really is nothing in Genesis chapter 6 to suggest that the offspring produced when the sons of God, Cain and Seth took wives from the daughters of the other homosapiens on the planet, were giants in any sense other than being great and famous leaders of human civilization.

I also recall the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanting to have relations with angels.

Yes for centuries people wanted to be able to say magic words that would turn lead into gold. People quite often want what they can they cannot have, even things which make no sense and are logically inconsistent.

You had better make sure the ladies you know keep their heads covered so the angels (purely spiritual beings) don't get them, as the sound advice from the New Testament teaches, the sight of a womans uncovered head is irresistible to angels you know.

Now you seem to be babbling incoherently. You should look for some medication to take for that.

[Agnostie]

I certainly don't claim that just because a book says something then that makes it so, but you were asking about what sort of Bible I have. What sort of Bible do you have? Or do you even have one at all? Or if you have one, then have you read it?

I have the following Bibles:
NASB (Updated Edition)
NASB
KJV
NKJV
NIV
ASV
NLT
Tanakh (English Translation)
Hebrew Old Testament (Transliterated)
Greek New Testament (Transliterated)
I also have several commentaries, Lexicons and Concordances.
So, yes I have read the Bible, so much that I can't give you an actual number of times, even all the begots that everyone skips over. I was a Christian for 27 years, 15 years of which were as an adult. I have seen and believed both sides of this argument, and used to love apologetics. Ignorance is bliss.

Sure. I guess you somehow think it is impossible to speak to a spiritual being face to face as a man talks with his friend. It is not spiritual things that are limited in what they can do but only physical things.

How convenient, magic is a wonderful thing.

I also recall the stories of the angels taking women as wives and their offspring being giants.

Yes that is a very bizarre creationist interpretation of Genesis chapter 6 which just shows to what lengths people will bend over backwards into complete absurdity to make some passages mean what they want it to mean. Everywhere else in the Bible, the "sons of God" refer not to angels but to God's chosen people and there really is nothing in Genesis chapter 6 to suggest that the offspring produced when the sons of God, Cain and Seth took wives from the daughters of the other homosapiens on the planet, were giants in any sense other than being great and famous leaders of human civilization.

Actually this bizarre tale is not a creationist interpretation of Genesis chapter 6. I wrote a paper a few years back titled "Who were the Nephilim?". In doing my research for that paper I discovered that it is only modern day Christians who reject that the Nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels and women. I realize that this story hits a little too close to Greek mythology for most Christians of today to accept, however if you honestly research it you will find that the Sons of God in Genesis chapter 6 are angels. For once the creationists have gotten something right. Read the Tanakh, since it even translates this passage using the terms "divine beings" instead of "Sons of God" and it makes it perfectly clear what is going on here. It is interesting how when something doesn't fit with a Christian's theology that they outright reject it, accepting the wrong teaching because they are more comfortable with it. This also explains some of the ethnic cleansing the Hebrews did in the Bible. They were killing off every last descendant of the Nephilim. Some ask "how could they kill the children and the babies?", well this is why, because even the children were the descendants of the Nephilim, and God wanted them wiped out, according to the Bible. Even the names of some of these tribes, like Rephaim is Hebrew for 'phantoms'. This was also the reason for the deluge, although the deluge was not entirely successful since some how the Nephilim appear again later in the Bible although the Bible doesn't give us details on how they were able to return, however there are clues in the New Testament, hence my comment about the women covering their heads. The evidence is overwhelmingly supporting this bizarre tale, but most Christians won't be honest about it. I can provide you with my paper if you really want to know more.

I also recall the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanting to have relations with angels.

Yes for centuries people wanted to be able to say magic words that would turn lead into gold. People quite often want what they can they cannot have, even things which make no sense and are logically inconsistent.

I am not sure how saying magic words has anything to do with the story in Sodom and Gomorrah. It obviously made sense to Lot since he offered up his daughters to the sex crazed mob. It seems that it made perfect sense and was logically consistent to Lot, that these men could indeed rape the angels. This is another crazy story from the Bible.

You had better make sure the ladies you know keep their heads covered so the angels (purely spiritual beings) don't get them, as the sound advice from the New Testament teaches, the sight of a womans uncovered head is irresistible to angels you know.

Now you seem to be babbling incoherently. You should look for some medication to take for that.

If you knew your New Testament, then you would know what I am "babbling" about and how it fits with this conversation, would you like me to explain it and provide you with some verses to read that you must have missed or skimmed over?

[JustJim]

Here's a "Study Note" on the term "the sons of God" in Gen 6:2, from the NET (New English Translation) :

sn The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.

FWIW....

There are also many other interesting translator, study and textual criticism notes in the NET. If you're interested, you could bookmark this site to have free access to it anytime you're interested: http://net.bible.org/bible.php#n4

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders.

"Sons of God" DOES NOT occur only in Genesis 6 and Job, AND the uses in Job ARE NOT clearly refering to angelic beings except when viewed through a filter of preconceptions just as is the case with Genesis chapter 6. Many Bibles do automatically translate "sons of God" in Job as angels, but Job does talk about angels seperately in Job 4:18 and 33:23, and there is no connection made there to the sons of God assembled before God in beginning of Job, and in fact they are refered to in Job 4:18 as SERVANTS rather than sons or children. By contrast the chosen people, the Israelites, are unambiguously referred to as the sons of God and the children of God all over the Old Testament: Deut 14:1 "You are the sons of the Lord your God", Is 43:6 "bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth", Psalms 82 "sons of the Most High", Exodus 4:22 "Israel is my first-born son", Psalm 2:7 David speaking says "I will tell you of the decree of the Lord; He said to me, 'You ae my son, today I have begotten you.'"

Psalms 82 is particularly interesting because the first verse taken out of context might imply polytheism: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement". But in verse 6 we have God saying this to the Israelites: "I say, 'You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.'" This goes hand in hand with Hebrews in the NT to show that angels will never be anything but servants and it is human beings who are the children and sons of God, NOT the angels. If God has a divine council that He assembles as is described in the beginning of Job then it is NOT the angels which are assembled but the fathers of the faith, such as Moses and Elijah who came to Jesus and talked with Him in Matt 17:1-4.

Actually this bizarre tale is not a creationist interpretation of Genesis chapter 6. I wrote a paper a few years back titled "Who were the Nephilim?". In doing my research for that paper I discovered that it is only modern day Christians who reject that the Nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels and women. ...

Yes the point is that if you are looking to do so one can certainly interpret parts of the Bible in the most ridiculous and bizarre ways. The creationists are certainly so motivated, making the Bible absurd in their rather desperate efforts to reject science and of course those opposed to Christianity are certainly so motivated to make the Bible as absurd as they can also. But the one thing that is obvious, is that ANYONE who puts forward the completely ridiculous notion that the Bible can only be legitimately understood in the way that they understand it, is anything but objective and it is also quite doubtful that they are firing on all their mental cylinders too.

[tonyenglish7]

Lawrence,

tonyenglish7 wrote:
But it is the mind that is using the body, not the other way around.

Really it is the genes that are using the body (and therefore the mind) to reproduce. Something they're failing at in my case .

So, if it benefits the genes to make you think there is no God, your mind would think that it thinks on its own there is no God?

[mitchellmckain]

Really it is the genes that are using the body (and therefore the mind) to reproduce. Something they're failing at in my case .

This anthropomorphizing of genes to ascribe to them attributes of intention is where Dawkins goes off the deep end in "The Selfish Gene". He carries on this absurdity with memes to say that things like the Bible uses people in order to reproduce. I am reminded of a science fiction short story that proposes the idea that there is a metaphorphizing alien life form that transforms from socks to coat hangers and so one, in order to explain why socks keep disappearing while coat hangers seem to multiply. LOL

DNA is simply an information storage mechanism that is used by the self-organizing dynamic structures that we call life. It is this behavoir of self organization that justifies the attribution of intention to these organisms and the process of evolution by which they learn and develop. But to abstract a molecule like DNA out of this self-organization and to ascribe powers of intension, control and manipulation to it is nothing less that completely absurd, and is reminiscent of the ridiculous reductionists metaphysics of A. N. Whitehead in "Process and Reality" and other quantum philosophers who similarly try to ascribe attributes of consciousness to other various building blocks of space, time and matter.

But it is the mind that is using the body, not the other way around.

I quite agree, even though I do not embrace your view that the mind is a non-physical entity. I think that the patterns of human behavior in the needs which they pursue make it rather obvious to me that the human mind is the dominant life form in a symbiosis with the human body. But I also think the evidence makes it obvious that the human mind is a physical living organism that can be damaged or die even though the body remains alive.

So, if it benefits the genes to make you think there is no God, your mind would think that it thinks on its own there is no God?

And if the human race has evolved a genetic imperative that causes them to believe in God, then does this take precedence over the reasons that atheists find to disbelieve? LOL

[Lawrence]

So, if it benefits the genes to make you think there is no God, your mind would think that it thinks on its own there is no God?

The problem is that genes cannot code for beliefs. This is a problem Plantinga falls into with his EAAN. Beliefs are patterns of neuronal connections. Genes do not code for individual connections, they code for the location of neuronal layers and connections between brain regions. They are not visual reflexes like face recognition in infants, they are not biases towards language acquisition, beliefs are complex relations between concepts.Beliefs are not phenotypes.

As a side note, I've been reading articles on this subject recently, studies in the neo-cortex have in fact found certain regions in the brain that act as biological tabula rasa. In other words neurons are interconnected universally. That is, those clusters have no biases one way or the other.

[Lawrence]

This anthropomorphizing of genes to ascribe to them attributes of intention is where Dawkins goes off the deep end in "The Selfish Gene". He carries on this absurdity with memes to say that things like the Bible uses people in order to reproduce.

Personally, I'm not convinced the meme hypothesis is practically more than a metaphor or primer for interesting analogies.

But to abstract a molecule like DNA out of this self-organization and to ascribe powers of intention, control and manipulation to it is nothing less that completely absurd,

I'm not doing anything of the sort. DNA does not have intention, anymore than any other molecule is able of intention. The only issue is what is natural selection acting upon. I think many things such as altruism can be explained better by the view that natural selection is acting on genes and individuals are the machines that genes "use". The agency language is just short-hand.

I also think that natural selection acts on species and groups.

and is reminiscent of the ridiculous reductionists metaphysics of A. N. Whitehead in "Process and Reality" and other quantum philosophers who similarly try to ascribe attributes of consciousness to other various building blocks of space, time and matter.

Penrose comes to mind. Yes there is great interest by those in other fields to attempt to solve the cognitive science problems. Most are useless but I think that it is a good trend. Recently we've been talking about dynamic systems and chaos theory and how it can be applied to understand parallel constraint satisfaction in connectionism.

[tonyenglish7]

Lawerence,

tonyenglish7 wrote:
So, if it benefits the genes to make you think there is no God, your mind would think that it thinks on its own there is no God?

Lawrence wrote: The problem is that genes cannot code for beliefs. This is a problem Plantinga falls into with his EAAN. Beliefs are patterns of neuronal connections. Genes do not code for individual connections, they code for the location of neuronal layers and connections between brain regions. They are not visual reflexes like face recognition in infants, they are not biases towards language acquisition, beliefs are complex relations between concepts.Beliefs are not phenotypes.

As a side note, I've been reading articles on this subject recently, studies in the neo-cortex have in fact found certain regions in the brain that act as biological tabula rasa. In other words neurons are interconnected universally. That is, those clusters have no biases one way or the other

Wow, sounds like you have a lot of knowledge on this subject. Are you talking about Plantinga from Notre Dame? I know he is a brilliant philosopher... I really don't think it is all that complicated on a basic level. My question is, if DNA is being accumulated just through natural selection, than the idea that we think freely as a rational mind is an illusion, as there is no, non-physical aspect to personal mind. The mind is just an effect of a physical brain without any purpose other than survival. But how can one trust that the physical chance random sequences that were only selected for survival are trustworthy to decide some truth regarding these issues, even God or evolution itself? What causes survival could prove very different than reality and rationally free decision making is already obviously an illusion if this view is true. Therefore, you could never know if the view is actually true. You would believe it for many small previous physical reasons fully apart from reality.

It doesn't take a Doctorate in philosophy to understand this point. But you need a working mind to freely decide it clearly.

[JustJim]

The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bÿne-ha’elohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. (Emphasis added)

"Sons of God" DOES NOT occur only in Genesis 6 and Job

I think you misread the NET note, Mitch. The writer did not say the phrase "sons of God" occurs only in Gen 6:2 and in Job as cited. He/she said the HEBREW phrase that was translated "sons of God" occurs only in those places. Obviously, some other things that were also translated as "sons of God" occur in other places.

Jim

[Lawrence]

Wow, sounds like you have a lot of knowledge on this subject.

Not really. I am doing Neuroscience honours (i.e. 4 year version of a BSc in Canada) with cognitive science minor though.

Are you talking about Plantinga from Notre Dame? I know he is a brilliant philosopher...

Yes he is and I like his writing style. However, as a non-scientist he does not take into account biological constraints in the EAAN. There are other problems with EAAN but the argument itself is so advanced (for lack of a better word) that I would never convince anyone without a degree in philosophy (it relies on ideas about defeaters for example). Anyway, that's off-topic.

My question is, if DNA is being accumulated just through natural selection, than the idea that we think freely as a rational mind is an illusion, as there is no, non-physical aspect to personal mind.

I think that the definition of "freely" and "rational mind" are important here. Most of us act freely, in the sense that our actions are controlled intrinsically. In other words we are not slaves to anyone else. I do not believe we have the ability to ignore our environment and brain state though and pluck ideas out of nothing. I believe that what we do is determined by the state of our brain and as the brain is a macroscopic physical object it depends on physical, chemical, biological and computational laws which do not change. However, with 100,000,000,000 neurons in the brain, the patterns that can develop are very similar to chaotic systems (such as weather, predator prey systems, the intricate designs of snowflakes and leaves) although much more complicated. Order from chaos and emergent properties are easily realized in this kind of interconnected system.

Anyway, it suffices to say that I believe that we do not have free will in the sense that we could have made a different decision if the exact environmental and mental situation was repeated (contra-causal free will). We are however free, we are a complex system, and just like a computer can be rational (make logical decisions or make decisions based on algorithms acting on inputs) we can be rational as well, without a soul.

The mind is just an effect of a physical brain without any purpose other than survival.

That is just the physical "utility function" as Dawkins puts it. Purpose is what you determine. Don't sell yourself short, you could have led a happy life if never exposed to your particular brand of Christianity.

But how can one trust that the physical chance random sequences that were only selected for survival are trustworthy to decide some truth regarding these issues, even God or evolution itself?

Truth itself has a selection benefit. Let me give you an example:

Suppose ten individuals are given ten different maps, only one of which provides an accurate route to some buried treasure.If we want to explain the resulting activity of any of the individuals (including the one with the correct map) then all we need to appeal to are the directions on the maps. It is the intrinsic features of the map that have causally relevant properties to the behavior in question. Now the accuracy or inaccuracy of any given map (compared to the actual position of the buried treasure) is irrelevant. However, if we want to explain not behavior in general but a certain sort of behavior, namely that which leads to a hunter actually finding the treasure, then we need to appeal not to the physical features of the map but to its truth value. It is the accuracy (representativeness of truth) that is the causally salient feature. It is what determines why the other hunters (all with the same map following behavior mind you) fail while one succeeds. In fact, if the finding of treasure was important to the survival of the seeker (and thus naturally selected for) then it would the truth value of the map that leads to the seekers selection.

To make this analogy clear, it is evolutionarily advantageous for the mind to make rational decisions on accurate information because accurate information is causally related to survival. Therefore, natural selection would select for those genes that provide the ability to form an accurate map of the world. This must also be a general rule remember because the DNA cannot code for beliefs, beliefs are complex neuronal patterns in a naturalistic view of the mind which form from experience.

I hope that helped make my position more clear.