The evolutionary argument against atheism (naturalism*, specifically) challenges the compatibility of naturalism with the reliability of human cognitive faculties, particularly those involved in forming beliefs about the world.
Though I appreciate Plantinga's argument, I can’t help but wonder: is it really that effective?
After all, his critique of naturalism doesn't seem to question the claims of naturalistic thought at all; it only questions whether a naturalist can reasonably defend his rational faculties. This same question, however, could be posed to the proponents of any (rational) belief-system, since there is no way to "reasonably defend" reason itself.
I’d be curious to know your thoughts on the matter.
Though I appreciate Plantinga's argument, I can’t help but wonder: is it really that effective?
After all, his critique of naturalism doesn't seem to question the claims of naturalistic thought at all; it only questions whether a naturalist can reasonably defend his rational faculties. This same question, however, could be posed to the proponents of any (rational) belief-system, since there is no way to "reasonably defend" reason itself.
I’d be curious to know your thoughts on the matter.
Pax,
E.K.