This argument, often associated with the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, suggests that if our cognitive faculties (senses, memory, and reason) were merely the products of blind, unguided evolution, we would have no reason to trust that they provide us with true beliefs about the world.
Here is a breakdown of the logic, the "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" (EAAN), and its implications.
1. The Core Premise: Survival vs. Truth
The argument highlights a fundamental tension between Naturalism (the belief that there is no supernatural) and Evolution.
Evolutionary Goal: Natural selection cares about survival and reproduction, not metaphysical truth. It rewards behaviors that keep an organism alive (e.g., running away from a predator).
The Problem: An organism can have "false" beliefs that still lead to "correct" survival behaviors. If your brain is wired to survive, it doesn’t necessarily need to be wired for truth.
Example: If a primitive human believes that a tiger is a "friendly orange cat" but also believes the best way to pet it is to run 1 mile in the opposite direction, they survive. The belief is false, but the behavior is "fit."
2. The Logic of the Argument
Plantinga structures the argument as a "defeater" for the naturalist worldview:
Low Probability: If evolution and naturalism are both true, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low.
The Defeater: If someone accepts both evolution and naturalism and sees that the probability of their faculties being reliable is low, they have a "defeater" for the reliability of their own mind.
Total Skepticism: If you can't trust your mind, you can't trust the arguments your mind produced—including the arguments for evolution and naturalism.
Self-Referential Incoherence: Therefore, naturalism is self-defeating. It provides a reason to doubt the very tools used to arrive at naturalism in the first place.
3. The Alternative: Theism
The "Argument from Reliability" serves as an argument for a Designer or God. It posits that:
Our cognitive faculties are generally reliable.
The best explanation for this reliability is that they were designed by an intelligent being to "aim at truth."
Unlike unguided evolution, a created mind has a functional purpose: to perceive reality accurately.
