Claim 5 of 9 · Case 09 · Atheism
If the mind is only the product of blind evolution aimed at survival, we lose grounds for trusting reason, which fits better with a rational creator.
One claim from the free evidence repository at apologetics.pro.
This argument says that if our thinking is entirely the result of unguided evolution selecting for survival rather than for truth, then we have little reason to trust our reasoning about deep questions, including whether God exists. It concludes that confidence in reason fits better with a universe made by a rational mind. The best known formal version is Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. Honest limit: this is the most contested of our arguments and has drawn strong published rebuttals. Many philosophers hold that true beliefs are in fact useful for survival, so evolution would tend to favor reliable reasoning rather than undermine it. We offer this argument as a thought-provoking challenge inside the larger case, not as a settled result. It’s a real, seriously debated argument, but it’s the weakest one here.
Backed by 2 pieces of evidence
Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies
This is the argument in its rigorous, formal version, a stated philosophical case rather than a loose slogan.
Replies to the argument (Stephen Law, Michael Bergmann, and others)
Fairness requires including this rebuttal, since this is the weakest argument in our case. It shows exactly where the argument is vulnerable, which is why we offer it as a live challenge rather than oversell it.