Tag: Alvin Plantinga

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism–A Response

📘 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.

The Academic Respectability Illusion: Debunking “The Plantinga Effect”

📘 About This Series

This post is part of a daily response series to The Problem of God: Answering a Skeptic’s Challenges to Christianity by Mark Clark. The series critically engages with each chapter and section of the book, examining Clark’s arguments through the lens of reason, historical evidence, and The God Question’s core philosophy: what’s true doesn’t fear investigation.

Today’s post responds to content found in pages 25-26 of the book — the section titled “The Plantinga Effect”.

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series on The God Question blog at godordelusion.com\thegodquestion.

Why philosophical theism isn’t gaining the ground Clark claims it is.

In The Problem of God, Mark Clark tells a story that many Christians love to hear: that belief in God is once again becoming intellectually fashionable, thanks largely to the work of Alvin Plantinga. He calls this movement “The Plantinga Effect,” and he uses it to argue that theism is not only rational — it’s regaining academic respectability.

But is that really what’s happening?

Let’s examine the claims, the context, and the credibility of what Clark calls a “fundamental shift” in the world of science and philosophy.

🧠 What Clark Argues

Clark builds his case on three main points:

  1. Quentin Smith’s WarningSmith, a noted atheist philosopher, once warned that Christians were “taking over philosophy departments” and that the field was becoming “de-secularized.” Clark treats this as evidence that theism is resurging — not by ignorance, but through reason.
  2. Alvin Plantinga’s InfluencePlantinga, a Christian philosopher, is credited with making belief in God “academically respectable.” His arguments for the rationality of theism are portrayed as having turned the philosophical tide.
  3. David Bentley Hart’s Dismissal of AtheismHart is quoted as saying that atheism is not only irrational but amounts to superstition — a position Clark presents as reflective of a broader academic awakening.

🔍 What’s Actually Going On?

1. Plantinga Is Respected — But Not Convincing the Majority

Alvin Plantinga is, undeniably, a heavyweight in modern philosophy of religion. His work — particularly his claim that belief in God can be a “properly basic belief” — has shaped academic discussions.

But here’s the problem: most philosophers don’t agree with him.

According to the 2020 PhilPapers Survey, about 73% of professional philosophers identify as atheists, while only 15% identify as theists. So while Plantinga has legitimized theism as a discussion topic, his arguments have not reversed the broader philosophical consensus. His influence is real, but not revolutionary.

2. Quentin Smith Was Sounding an Alarm, Not Celebrating a Shift

Clark quotes Smith as though he were acknowledging a renaissance of reasoned Christianity. But Smith’s actual point was one of concern, not endorsement. He was warning that Christian apologetics was gaining visibility — particularly in Christian institutions — not that their arguments were winning converts among secular philosophers.

This is a common rhetorical move: frame critique as concession.

3. David Bentley Hart’s Dismissal Is Polemical, Not Philosophical

Clark ends the section with a quote from David Bentley Hart, who calls atheism a “superstition” and claims it stems from “a tragic absence of curiosity.” It’s a colorful insult, but not an argument.

This kind of language may feel satisfying to believers — flipping the script on those who’ve long dismissed religion — but it doesn’t provide evidence. It simply mirrors the ridicule that many Christians rightly reject when it’s aimed at them.

Ironically, Hart’s mockery commits the very error Clark criticizes elsewhere: dismissing a worldview without engaging its strongest arguments.

💡 The Real “Effect” of Plantinga

If anything, the Plantinga Effect demonstrates this:

It is possible to argue for theism in academically serious ways —

but it is not inevitable that reason leads to belief.

Clark wants his readers to feel reassured that theism is gaining intellectual ground. But citing a few Christian philosophers and institutional trends does not amount to a paradigm shift. In fact, it reveals a deeper truth:

Christian apologetics often relies not on evidence, but on reframing old ideas as newly respected.

If theism is making a comeback in some circles, it’s not because the arguments have suddenly become airtight. It’s because, like any belief system, it’s finding ways to adapt, promote, and repackage itself for modern audiences.

And that’s not a triumph of reason. It’s a triumph of marketing.