. . . Providing an Articulate, Intelligent Voice in

Defending Biblical Christianity

in the Public Square

Q: Dr. Craig,
I have a question about Alvin Platinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. He argues, I think, that the probability that my cognitive factulties are reliable (R) given that naturalism and evolution (N&E) are true, is low or inscrutable. And that, furthermore, if I accept that P(R/N&E) is low or inscrutable, then I have a defeater for any belief produced by my faculties, including N&E.
I have found this argument persuasive for many years now (nearly seven). But it recently occurred to me that the inference from "the P(R/N&E) is low or inscrutable" to "therefore I have a defeater for N&E" may be analogous to inferring from "the probability that my beliefs are reliably true (75% or so) given that Descartes' Demon exists, is low or inscrutable" to "therefore, I have a defeater for the belief that Descartes' Demon exists".