Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

Alvin Plantinga is one of the leading philosophers in the Western World.  And he's a committed Christian.  His writings are admittedly rigorous reading.  But for those who take the time, Plantinga's arguments for the existence of God are some of the best.  His Ontological Argument shows (in my opinion) that God's existence is either necessary or impossible.  There's no middle ground.

When it comes to Naturalism, I think Plantinga has a "death blow" argument that soundly defeats that worldview.  As an explanation, a worldview is how someone views the world.  What is real, what isn't real, and what facts explain the world around us.  Atheists most often claim to believe the 'Naturalist' worldview.  For a definition of this worldview, consider the following:

A naturalistic (or atheistic) worldview claims that there is no God, the universe sprang into existence with no explanation (or else has existed eternally), life arose on primordial earth through random chemical reactions, and human life evolved through random mutation and natural selection.  There is nothing particularly special about human beings compared to the rest of nature, and our primary problem is enslavement to superstitious worldviews that promote religious belief.  The solution to the problem is intellectual evolution and liberation from religious oppression.  After we die, we entirely cease to be, so whatever purpose we choose to pursue for our lies is the only purpose and meaning there can be.

 - An Introduction to Christian Worldview by Tawa J. Anderson, W. Michael Clark and David K. Naugle, p. 25

Armed with this definition, let's see what Plantinga has to say (and I've linked an interview of him about this topic if you'd like to hear it in his own words...something I highly recommend).

It's Plantinga's argument that, given the Naturalistic worldview (which atheism claims is true), truth has no economy and we can't even know what is true or make truth claims of any sort!  

Consider first that evolution only selects for survivability.  Its only "purpose" (if blind, unguided forces can have purpose) is to favor biological entities that are able to reproduce the most offspring (survival of the fittest).  And if that entity must believe something false in order to reproduce, that doesn't matter.  Evolution only cares that the creature is able to survive longer so that it can reproduce more, and thus pass along more of its genetics to the next generation.

While this sound radical at first glance (after all, do creatures with false beliefs have a greater chance of survival?), consider an example.  What about a man who is a germophobe.  He is convinced that there are germs everywhere, and so he isolates himself, washes himself incessantly, and refuses to go out in public.  At the same time, this person is convinced that one of the best ways to avoid germs is to sleep with as many women as possible.  

Here we have a viable example of a man with false beliefs, but whose beliefs will likely enhance his survival and simultaneously lead to his genetics being passed on to the next generation.  Plantinga's example is about a person with the false belief that tigers are cute and cuddly, but that the best way to make friends with one is to run away from it whenever one sees it.  Here we have another false belief that leads to increased changes of survival (survival of the fittest).

So where does this leave us?  If evolution is true, then everything we believe may be false.  All of it.  So long as that belief helps us reproduce, it doesn't matter whether it's true or false.  It just has to be functional.  And this leads the naturalist to total skepticism about everything.

This includes (stick with me), the belief "Naturalism is true"!  So if someone is a Naturalist (which accepts evolution), then they can't believe in anything.  Including Naturalism.

Naturalism turns out to be entirely contradictory and self defeating.

In case this is not making sense (again, any confusion is my fault, watch Plantinga's video below to hopefully clear things up), here are a couple of quotes that might help:

J.B.S. HALDANE ON BELIEF

'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' 

- Possible Worlds by JBS Haldane, p. 209

CS LEWIS ON THE DARWINIAN MIND

“If minds are wholly dependent on brains and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”

- A Mind Awake: An Anthology of C.S. Lewis by C.S. Lewis, p. 229

DARWIN'S HORRID DOUBT

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” 

- Charles Darwin in a letter to William Graham, July 3, 1881

Notice the 3rd quote?  Even Darwin himself struggled with the idea that if his theory is right, how could he believe his own theory?  Who believes something that comes from the mind of a monkey?

So if Naturalism is true, no one can believe that Naturalism is true.  And as we see repeatedly when it comes to the beliefs of Atheism, their worldview collapses under its own weight.

But don't just listen to me. Listen to Plantinga himself.  You'll be glad you did.

https://youtu.be/cs6zFymVKJM