The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

Recently, Godless Granny had a discussion with apologist Eric Hernandez about reasons to believe in God. Several arguments were brought up, including the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. The EAAN from Alvin Plantinga argues that believing that our brains came about through naturalistic means, developed by evolution, gives us a reason to doubt the reliability of our cognitive faculties. In this video I take a look at the argument itself, and explain the various moves that the argument is making to bring about this doubt. As well as some objections that draw on the work of Pritchard (2023) and DeVito and McNabb (2022), along with some other objections I have to the argument.

References
==========
DeVito, M. and McNabb, T. (2022) ‘The Evolutionary Argument for God: A Wittgensteinian Response’, International Journal for Philosophy, Vol. 2, pp. 91-98.

Pritchard, D. (2023) ‘Hinge commitments and trust’, Synthese, Vol. 202, pp. 148-168.

Links
=====

Social Media:

Support The Stream:

#AiR #AnswersinReason #Philosophy

[reubenkriegel]

So I've heard this argument about a half a dozen times from theists, and every time I've heard it it took one of two forms, both of those two forms were not well described or discussed in this video it seems to me. Your primary focus seems to be on the idea of as you said getting us to doubt our fundamental faculties which as you very well stated leads to epistemological collapse. However I've never heard it used in this form. I've heard it used in two forms. The first one is inference to the best explanation. You did discuss this briefly, but I don't feel that you did it justice.

One form is: Considering the fact that we have somewhat reliable reasoning capacities and senses, etc, is this reality better explained through naturalism or through theism?

The second form I've heard is if a, then b. If b, then (probably) not a. So if naturalism is true, there's no reason to believe that we have trustworthy faculties. Therefore if we don't have trustworthy faculties, there's no reason to believe that naturalism is true. It's a version of the roadrunner tactic.

I've never heard it as a method for trying to get someone to doubt their basic cognitive function or the reliability of their senses. Only The logical inconsistency of holding both beliefs, that we have trustworthy senses and at the same time naturalism is true. Wow these are not incompatible beliefs, it's not entirely consistent to hold both of them at the same time due to the apparent statistical improbability.

You did make a really good point though, which is that the theist does have to explain why our faculties are not completely reliable, such as the examples you gave of some people believing that the Earth is flat or other conspiracy theories that are easily debunked. This does have a pretty easy and simple solution though in the judeo Christian worldview as well as the majority of theistic worldviews. I don't know of any theistic worldview where in the world as it is it's perfect. In the judeo Christian worldview, the universe was created perfect and then it got screwed up (obviously a drastic over simplification, but still). That can easily explain why our faculties are not perfect. There is also self-interest, which as I think we all know, does not always align with reality. There are some things that, if true, would logically lead us to act in a way that is not self-interested (or at least appears to be not self-interested, even if in fact it is self-interested in the long term, but requires giving up short-term gratification). And there are certain things that if we hold to them, even if we understand them to be lies, are very gratifying, whether in the short term or long term.

I hope I've done a good job of articulating clearly my position and thoughts.