📘 Introduction for Blog Series Readers
This post is part of a daily series responding to The Problem of God by Mark Clark—a book that attempts to defend Christianity by critiquing science, reason, and secular worldviews. In this entry, we’re examining pages 34–37 from the chapter The Problem of Science, where Clark leans on philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s argument that if evolution and naturalism are true, then our cognitive faculties can’t be trusted. This post continues our project here at The God Question—a blog that exists to challenge inherited beliefs, reexamine dogmas, and invite clarity in place of confusion.
To read other posts in this series, visit: godordelusion.com\thegodquestion
🧩 Clark’s Argument: A Quick Summary
In this section, Clark presents what’s often called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It goes something like this:
- Evolution only selects for survival, not truth.
- Therefore, if naturalism is true and our brains evolved solely through evolution, our beliefs might not be reliable.
- As a result, we can’t trust our reasoning—including belief in evolution itself.
- This is presented as a self-defeating view. If your mind evolved from purely natural causes, why should you trust it?
- To support this, Clark quotes Alvin Plantinga and even Charles Darwin, who once expressed a doubt about the trustworthiness of human reason given its origins.
The implication is clear: if you want reliable thinking, you need God.
🧠 Why This Argument Fails—And Why It Still Persists
1. It’s a Strawman of Evolution and Cognition
Plantinga’s argument—and by extension, Clark’s—is deeply flawed. It assumes that survival and truth are mutually exclusive, but that’s simply not true. In many real-world scenarios, accurate models of the world help an organism survive. Misjudging the location of food, predators, shelter, or other agents would lead to death—not reproduction. Evolution does favor usefulness, but often truth is useful.
2. Science Has Corrective Mechanisms
Clark frames naturalistic thinking as “blind,” but science is not a lone mind guessing in the dark. It’s a collective, cumulative system of testing, peer review, prediction, and falsifiability. Plantinga’s argument ignores the tools we’ve built to overcome cognitive bias: experimentation, statistics, review, and replication. These don’t depend on a divine origin—just consistency and feedback.
3. It’s the Ultimate Double Standard
If our minds can’t be trusted under naturalism, what makes them trustworthy under theism? Clark wants to say, “If God made your brain, it works.” But this assumes the very thing in question—a trustworthy, intentional designer. If we’re misled under evolution, couldn’t we also be deceived by God? Why should a mind made by divine design be assumed reliable without any evidence?
And let’s be honest: if Christian minds are so reliable, why are there tens of thousands of denominations? Why do believers disagree about virtually every major doctrine?
4. Darwin’s Quote Is Misused
Darwin’s “horrid doubt” is often used to show he questioned his own theory. But this is a cherry-picked, rhetorical quote taken from a letter. Darwin was engaging in philosophical reflection, not scientific denial. He didn’t abandon his trust in science. He continued to rely on empirical observation to understand the world, and his legacy shows that clearly.
5. This Argument Is Philosophy in Disguise
The EAAN sounds scientific, but it’s not. It’s a philosophical sleight of hand—trying to make science look self-defeating by redefining “truth,” ignoring empirical tools, and offering a false choice: either God made your brain, or you can’t trust it.
But the actual choice is between a rigorously tested method of inquiry (science), and an assumed supernatural guarantee with no built-in way to test error or illusion.
🧭 Closing Thought
Plantinga’s argument, recycled here by Clark, might feel clever at first glance. It plays on doubt and uncertainty—a favorite tactic of religious apologetics. But what it offers in mystery, it lacks in substance. The real question isn’t whether our minds are perfect; it’s whether our methods are improving.
Science doesn’t pretend to be infallible. Religion does. That’s the problem.
God or Delusion? 