I wanted to throw up a quick post about an idea I have to
try and refute Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. This isn’t intended as a full rebuttal, but
more of an idea for an approach to refute it.
I’m actually looking for feedback on whether or not this
approach works or is fundamentally flawed.
The thrust of his argument is that since evolution only selects based on adaptability we can't necessarily trust the reliability of our cognitive faculties on naturalism (the assumption that there is no god).
An example he uses is that of a human and a lion, the truth value of a human's belief's about lions is separate from whether or not those beliefs produce adaptable behavior. On naturalism we have no reason to suppose our beliefs about a lion being dangerous and wanting to eat us, therefore we should run and hide from it.
We similarly could have evolved the belief that we should run from the tiger because in order to make tigers happy you should run and hide from them. The thought is that through the eyes of evolution, both sets of beliefs produce equivalent adaptability and so either could have been selected for.
