1. Show that a creature could survive even if he had false beliefs.
2. Show that evolutionary naturalism could be one of these beliefs. (Therefore, we have a defeater for EN—a reason to be agnostic toward it.)
3. Show that the EN naturalist has no way to independently verify EN since he is the product of EN.
4. Therefore, since the veracity of EN is either low or inscrutable, it is irrational to believe EN.

A humorous corollary of this argument is that if we are to assume that beliefs that help us survive are more likely to be true then apparently supernaturalism is more likely to be true than EN since so many people evolved to believe in supernaturalism.

At best, then, the EAAN simply shows that a belief isn’t true just because we evolved to believe it. If one simply wants to demonstrate that the naturalist can never justify his belief in naturalism then simpler arguments exist.

Sorry, I forgot to respond to your post. You shouldn’t think that his very basic article, which is only supposed to give a taste of his much more technical work, should stand on its own to be critiqued. If you read an article in a popular science magazine on General Relativity, then it would be unwise to think to yourself that you now have enough material before you to mount a critique of Relativity; what would be presented is just the cartoon-version of General Relativity. If you would want to critique it, then you would need to become intimate with the source material, the mathematics, etc..

It’s the same thing with Plantinga. His article is just the cartoon-version of his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism; understandably so, because his actual argument is highly technical—something that only well trained philosophers fully comprehend. The layman will get bogged down with the very important minutia.

If you want a start in getting acquainted with his argument, then look at this wikipedia page. It will give you a better idea of what’s going on.

If you state, as you did above, that it’s sound as far as you see it, then you’re done. Game over, end of story, punch out. The logical definition of soundness as that an argument has to be valid and have all true premises.

This helps a little more if you know the definition of validity: If you assume the premises to be true, then that forces the conclusion therefore also to be true.

So, if you say it is a sound argument, then you’re saying it is valid and has true premises, which means you’ve accepted the argument and agree with it. You think that the reasoning was done properly, and that the premises are in fact true.

The other problem with that is, it’s an inductive argument and not a deductive argument, and an inductive argument does not strive for soundness or validity. It is after strength and cogency. Similar concepts, only for an inductive argument.

So, what you meant to say, if I’m not too far off the mark, is that his argument sounds like a strong inductive argument. Perhaps even cogent.

And yes, the back and forth exchange of ideas here is an argument. An argument is not yelling and insulting. It is the reasoned exchange of ideas. Or at least one premise followed by a conclusion, usually, though not always, derived from that(those) premise(s).

Thanks for listening to me for this quick little post.

If I didn’t summarize his argument correctly in the article, please present it more accurately. I’m happy to revise my views and arguments if it is based on a straw man.

You didn’t even present us with a valid, deductive argument before attacking it; that’s a violation of the principle of charity.

I am taking the position of a skeptic with respect to whether we can actually know anything in a strictly material world. I am taking this position just to argue.

I have not yet heard a justification for rational thought and / or the scientific method from a purely materialistic perspective. You have the burden of proof on this one, you see.

As an aside:

In real life, as a Christian, I can assume that God created the world in such a way that my senses give basically accurate information; things will behave in the future as they have in the past (the uniformity of nature); and the abstract, immaterial laws of logic and mathematics apply. I can assume these things because I believe an all-knowing God designed the world and my senses and thought processes.

This is an assumption for right now, but there must be a viable alternative explanation for those things from a purely materialistic worldview. Find another assumption that works, and we will have something to argue about.

By the way:

Just because my senses do not work “perfectly” does not mean that they were not designed. They may not have been designed with the end in mind that they function in the way we define as “perfect.” They may have been designed for a particular purpose other than giving us completely accurate information in any and all circumstances.

JK

If you are a skeptic, why are you not skeptical towards your trust in an ancient holy book? You do not strike me as a skeptical person at all, but rather a believer.

You have not countered that argument. You have in fact affirmed it. You have admitted that your senses are not reliable in many instances that you are aware of. This supports the argument that sense perception is not reliable.

You have not proven that your sense give you accurate information about the world most of the time. In fact, the information you think you have in all of those cases might in fact be wrong; it’s just that it ensures survival value.

I am not now taking the position that Christianity is true. I am taking a position that the senses cannot be trusted to give accurate information. I am a skeptic, and your argument and the arguments in the comments that follow do not convince me.

if the expansion multiplying rate of quantum singularities theory is true than my faith is correct. it all started with albert eienstein when he found that the creator made small energy bubbels something like that and it contracts and than it make quantum singularities and than it ripped and it created a universe but before it created the universe it cause a ripple .

my faith is in the ” creator doesn’t know that we are here” . i know it can’t be proven by science. maybe it will in the future. but i doubt it. if someone has an idea that it can be proved by science. just tell me. if someone did convert to my faith just say i than you are a believer in a creator who just doesn’t care about you or know that you are here. you don’t need faith in my believes. i believe in this cause bad things happening to our world and people live like crap.

Evolution cannot explain in any remotely definitive way how we evolved consciousness, morals, or even our proclivity as humans to ponder philosophical questions like why are we here, what meaning does life have, is there a God and so on., This is what cannot be trusted if you are a naturalist atheist. Philosophical musings are obviously not necessary for survival one way or the other. In fact, a philosophical viewpoint that is entirely wrong may actually allow a human population to be more effective at reproducing and surviving.

Having accurate perceptions of the material world IS necessary for survival and also is the basis for science. This is very different than the human ability to process abstract thoughts that have no correspondence to anything material per se.

Are you so blind that you can’t see the difference here? You are mixing up apples and oranges. More formally, you are guilty of ambiguity and equivocation with the term “faculties” as Plantinga is using it.

Anybody who wants to try to prove that naturalism is true (or not true) via sound logical deduction is, in all likelihood, doomed to failure. As someone alluded to above, if you require that we rely only on sound logical deduction, then you will never escape radical skepticism regarding our knowledge of the world.