# Plantinga's EAAN



## steven-nemes (Dec 18, 2008)

(Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism)

An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

Personally I think this argument is ingenious. I haven't read any of the objections to it, I'll admit; I have recently re-listened to an audio file of him lecturing on this and I think this is one of those arguments I want to master. I think it works presuppositionally--if I correctly understand what it means to argue presuppositionally.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 18, 2008)

Can you briefly summarise Alvin Plantinga's arguments?


----------



## steven-nemes (Dec 19, 2008)

1. If evolutionary naturalism is true, then our cognitive faculties evolved in such a way so that the products of our cognitive faculties produce beliefs that allow for survival, not necessarily true beliefs.
2. That being said, we then have reason to doubt whether or not the beliefs produced by our cognitive faculties are true.
3. That being said, then we have reason to doubt if our belief in naturalistic evolution is true.

He says this is an undefeated defeater for naturalistic evolution.


----------



## Hippo (Dec 19, 2008)

While of course it proves nothing it seems like common sense to me.


----------



## Mathetes (Dec 19, 2008)

I remember reading a page he had where he fielded objections to his argument, but I've long forgotten the link. Maybe it's on his homepage? I forget.


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 19, 2008)

Steven, I think it is a correct proof. I think I read a take-off of sorts on this a few years ago in Gary DeMar's Thinking Straight in a Crooked World. Basically, DeMar says if evolution is true, then you are nothing more than a highly evolved ape/animal. Why should I therefore trust the reasoning of a highly evolved ape? 

However, let me voice a potential objection at this point. Is there possibly a genetic fallacy lurking in the argument? In other words, could a naturalist argue, "So what if this is just the product of an evolved mind? That does not mean that it is not a correct argument."


----------



## Mathetes (Dec 19, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> However, let me voice a potential objection at this point. Is there possibly a genetic fallacy lurking in the argument? In other words, could a naturalist argue, "So what if this is just the product of an evolved mind? That does not mean that it is not a correct argument."



I think the point, though, is that if it came from an evolved mind, you have no way of knowing if it is a correct argument (since evolution selects for survival rather than truth).


----------



## steven-nemes (Dec 19, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> Steven, I think it is a correct proof. I think I read a take-off of sorts on this a few years ago in Gary DeMar's Thinking Straight in a Crooked World. Basically, DeMar says if evolution is true, then you are nothing more than a highly evolved ape/animal. Why should I therefore trust the reasoning of a highly evolved ape?
> 
> However, let me voice a potential objection at this point. Is there possibly a genetic fallacy lurking in the argument? In other words, could a naturalist argue, "So what if this is just the product of an evolved mind? That does not mean that it is not a correct argument."



He says that if you have a reason to doubt the reliability of the origin of the belief, then the belief should not be held to. That if naturalism is true, you have reasons to doubt that it is true. I don't know particularly the objections raised to it, and I have never attempted to argue in favor of it, so I can't say I am prepared to answer any objections!



Mathetes said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > However, let me voice a potential objection at this point. Is there possibly a genetic fallacy lurking in the argument? In other words, could a naturalist argue, "So what if this is just the product of an evolved mind? That does not mean that it is not a correct argument."
> ...



Yeah I think you've got it.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 19, 2008)

Here is a link to a PhD Dissertation which defends the argument: http://edt.missouri.edu/Winter2005/Dissertation/NunleyT-060605-D1612/research.pdf


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 19, 2008)

Thanks all for the collective wisdom. It does seem to be quite a convincing argument, but it is also healthy, I think, to anticipate objections in order to be ready with an answer.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 25, 2008)

Here is a link to a web page that contains Plantinga's lecture notes on that argument: Alvin Plantinga - Audio Lecture Notes [The Academy of Christian Apologetics]


----------



## tellville (Dec 29, 2008)

Here's a book where Plantinga states his argument, several philosophers try to prove it wrong, and then Plantinga responds. I haven't read it, but Plantinga believes in the end his argument still wins out. I'm sure if you want to master this argument this would be the perfect book to read. 

Amazon.com: Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism: James K. Beilby: Books

I'm not sure if Plantiga address' this but couldn't this arugment be used against religion? For example, religion has many survival benefits (hope, community, purpose, etc.) and would be just the type of false beliefs one would expect under a naturalistic system. Thus, instead of proving natualism false, it shows how religion is wrong. Any thoughts?


----------



## steven-nemes (Dec 29, 2008)

tellville said:


> I'm not sure if Plantiga address' this but couldn't this arugment be used against religion? For example, religion has many survival benefits (hope, community, purpose, etc.) and would be just the type of false beliefs one would expect under a naturalistic system. Thus, instead of proving natualism false, it shows how religion is wrong. Any thoughts?



It's possible I misunderstand you.

If atheistic evolutionary naturalism is true, then _yes_, you have a defeater for all of your beliefs, be they religious or not. But naturalism _has not _been proven true, rather, it has been shown that if it [naturalism] is true, you have reason to not believe it (or anything for that matter), and if it's false, you have reason to not believe it.

Or it could be that I misunderstand the argument


----------



## tellville (Dec 30, 2008)

steven-nemes said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure if Plantiga address' this but couldn't this arugment be used against religion? For example, religion has many survival benefits (hope, community, purpose, etc.) and would be just the type of false beliefs one would expect under a naturalistic system. Thus, instead of proving natualism false, it shows how religion is wrong. Any thoughts?
> ...



No, I think you understand. 

I just think that if an atheist heard this argument they would say something along these lines:

1. Well, believing atheistic evolutionary naturalism has no benefits. It is nihilistic and thus the worst possible belief system to pro-create the species. The only reason someone would believe is if it were true.

2. Religion is the exact type of beliefs one would expect if atheistic evolutionary naturalism were true. It has many survival benefits such as hope, community, purpose, etc. It protects the species from extinction long enough to allow the species to come to true beliefs about the world. 

3. It keeps the species alive long enough to come to true beliefs about the world and alive long enough to be able to handle the depressing facts about our world. 

I'm not sure how I would respond to an atheist who said this.


----------



## steven-nemes (Dec 30, 2008)

tellville said:


> I just think that if an atheist heard this argument they would say something along these lines:
> 
> 1. Well, believing atheistic evolutionary naturalism has no benefits. It is nihilistic and thus the worst possible belief system to pro-create the species. The only reason someone would believe is if it were true.



If it is true, you have reason to doubt that belief. If it's false, then you have no reason to believe it unless you wanted to.



> 2. Religion is the exact type of beliefs one would expect if atheistic evolutionary naturalism were true. It has many survival benefits such as hope, community, purpose, etc. It protects the species from extinction long enough to allow the species to come to true beliefs about the world.



Is there the fallacy of affirming the consequent somewhere in here?

If naturalistic atheism is true, then beliefs that would support a species' existence would surface.
Religion is one of those beliefs that would support a species' existence.
Therefore naturalistic atheism is true?



> 3. It keeps the species alive long enough to come to true beliefs about the world and alive long enough to be able to handle the depressing facts about our world.



If naturalistic evolution is true, then true beliefs don't come into the picture anywhere; just survival-benefit beliefs. So the belief in religion would keep the species alive long enough to _reproduce_, not come to true beliefs.



> ]I'm not sure how I would respond to an atheist who said this.



I think it commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.


----------



## davidsuggs (Dec 30, 2008)

I can see a potentially harmful aspect to actually using it as anything more than a mind-game. Basically, in order to find the inherent problem, you must pretend to take the evolutionary worldview in order to "answer a fool as his folly deserver." The problem here would be, you must be able to think as if you potentially were evolved in order to see the inner problems. And if you could think as if you were evolved, then you would have no justification for trusting in the conclusion of your argument. In other words, it is a fun mind game to play with, but ultimately it seems to break down epistemologically. I could very easily be wrong however.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jan 1, 2009)

davidsuggs said:


> I can see a potentially harmful aspect to actually using it as anything more than a mind-game. Basically, in order to find the inherent problem, you must pretend to take the evolutionary worldview in order to "answer a fool as his folly deserver." The problem here would be, you must be able to think as if you potentially were evolved in order to see the inner problems. And if you could think as if you were evolved, then you would have no justification for trusting in the conclusion of your argument. In other words, it is a fun mind game to play with, but ultimately it seems to break down epistemologically. I could very easily be wrong however.



I think I am kind of understanding what you're saying but I don't wanna argue straw man or anything; can you explain yourself a little more clearly?


----------

