Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) challenges the coherence of simultaneously holding beliefs in both naturalism and evolution. Naturalism posits that no supernatural entities exist, while evolution explains the development of life through natural processes. Plantinga contends that if both are true, it undermines the reliability of human cognitive faculties, leading to a self-defeating position.
The EAAN is based on the idea that natural selection favors organisms with adaptive behaviors, not necessarily true beliefs. This means that our cognitive faculties may not be reliable, and our reasoning processes may not lead to truths. If this is true, then it is also irrational to believe in the reliability of our cognitive faculties, which would also mean it is irrational to believe in naturalism and random evolution.
It could evolve into an argument for guided evolution. Pun intended!
“You really can’t sensibly claim theistic belief is irrational without showing it isn’t true,” Mr. Plantinga said. And that, he argues, is simply beyond what science can do.
Mr. Plantinga says he accepts the scientific theory of evolution, as all Christians should. Mr. Dennett and his fellow atheists, he argues, are the ones who are misreading Darwin. Their belief that evolution rules out the existence of God — including a God who purposely created human beings through a process of guided evolution — is not a scientific claim, he writes, but “a metaphysical or theological addition.”[1]
The Argument Explained
Plantinga argues that natural selection prioritizes survival-enhancing behaviors, not necessarily true beliefs. He suggests that if our cognitive faculties are the product of evolutionary processes unguided by any deity, the probability that they are reliable is low or inscrutable. He states, “If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.”
To illustrate, Plantinga presents scenarios where false beliefs could lead to survival-promoting behaviors. For example, an early human might believe that running away from a tiger is the best way to pet it, leading to survival despite the false belief. Such examples demonstrate that survival does not necessarily depend on true beliefs.
Implications
If our cognitive faculties are unreliable, then all beliefs produced by these faculties, including the belief in naturalism and evolution, are called into question. This leads to a philosophical conundrum: accepting both naturalism and evolution provides a defeater for trusting our cognitive faculties, thereby undermining the justification for believing in naturalism and evolution.
Critiques and Responses
Critics argue that true beliefs are generally more advantageous for survival, suggesting that evolution would favor reliable cognitive faculties. Philosopher Michael Ruse contends that Plantinga conflates methodological and metaphysical naturalism and that evolution can account for reliable cognitive faculties.
In response, Plantinga maintains that while true beliefs can be advantageous, evolution prioritizes adaptive behavior, not truth. He asserts that naturalism combined with evolution leads to a form of skepticism about human cognition, which is self-defeating.
Conclusion
Plantinga’s EAAN presents a thought-provoking challenge to the coherence of believing in both naturalism and unguided evolution. By questioning the reliability of cognitive faculties produced solely through evolutionary processes, he invites deeper reflection on the foundations of human knowledge and the interplay between belief systems and our understanding of reality.
The Glorious Quran and Science 
Leave a comment