Turns out great minds think alike. Plantinga said something similar.

"But (to return to our argument) can the defeater the naturalist has for R be in turn defeated? I argued that it can't(WPF 233-234). It could be defeated only by something--an argument, for example, that involves some othersame defeater as R is. So this defeater can't be defeated."

SOURCE

So you now have TWO great thinkers who specialize in analytic philosophy that disagree with you. None of you are great thinkers who specialize in analytic philosophy. By Smith's hierarchy principle, the smaller number of great thinkers who specialize in analytic philosophy (in this case, 0) should yield to the larger number (in this case, 2) in questions dealing with analytic philosophy. Ergo, you must accept that the  EAAN cannot be defeated, and therefore you must accept the EAAN.

Nothing beyond that. The EAAN is a modest argument.

(*will get to serious comments in a later post)

Platinga: Evolution likely produces vastly more false beliefs than true.

Eloise: You got that right, Alvin. The world is very easily >86% religious.

Interesting logic. A bit like trying to crucify yourself, but forgetting about how to drive that last nail.

Magicians have a saying that pretty much sums up Plantinga's epistomology: "BELIEVE!"

As for his Evolutionary argument against naturalism. . .

Given

• N as naturalism
• E as the belief that we human beings have evolved in conformity with current evolutionary theory
• R as the proposition that our faculties are "reliable", where, roughly, a cognitive faculty is "reliable" if the great bulk of its deliverances are true.

he induces that the conditional probability of R|N&E is low. This boils down to the rarely seen base rate fallacy. It's so rare, in fact, that I must applaud Presup for finding it for me. I can now add this argument to my poke-dex of fallacious arguments! Also, R is too general and a lot of information is omitted in favor of support for E&~N+R, which is weak to begin with.

Sounds right.

Hey! I was going to say that..

But seriously, this is the biggest issue with Platinga, for me, he poses 'Cognitive Reliability' to imply cognitive reliance vis a vis naturalism. And I see, in there, both an unstated assumption and a possible conflation (of naturalism with naturalist).

The unstated assumption is that cognitive reliance in naturalism/ for naturalists is gauged on a presupposition of cognitive reliability. You see, Presupp, he's only argued that cognitive reliability via evolution is weak and from there leapt to cognitive reliance without stating the assumption he is using to obtain reliance from reliability. In other words, he is saying that naturalism assumes reliability and effects it as a justification for reliance but he's never explicitly stating that assumption - probably because it's not really a true assumption about naturalism. It may not be false wrt naturalists per se, though, hence it's probably a conflation of terms as well.

Now, if naturalism merely presupposes cognitive reliability to justify cognitive reliance then Platinga wins, end of subject. But naturalism doesn't do that, and only a discrete number of naturalistic occupations are of a type where reliance is supposed and inferred upon. Moreover, if naturalism was merely the presupposing of cognitive reliability to justify cognitive reliance then, like Platingas alternative "God" which is merely that, naturalism would be universally declared an absolute end - however, that isn't the case. Naturalists may or may not be inclined to declare an end unto epistemology as of naturalism, but naturalism isn't the naturalist, its methods are inclined to overturn the naturalist quite deftly. Naturalism clearly doesn't rely on the naturalists cognitive senses because, if it did, it wouldn't be so cheerfully inclined to defy them at regular turns the way it does.

In conclusion, I'm inclined to have some agreement with presuppositionalist arguments in that they have a strong case against any form of dogmatic thinking but I depart at the point where they instruct one 'to install an apriori justification for your cognitive reliability, insert God(X) here' it might as well read 'Why not continue indulging your pride and vanity and avoid those pesky interruptions of reason; stay blissfully arrogant and ignorant with DEITY^TM In stores Now!'

As for naturalism and evolution being uneasy bedmates courtesy of Platinga, it's not unexpected News to anyone who isn't afraid to lose their arrogance.

Ugh. After reading through what I have written I'm a little unhappy with it, actually, I think I haven't made the distinction between Ontological naturalism and Methodological naturalism very clear. I think it's fair to say since they are being pitted against each other it's hard to do, but anyway... New slate:

In Platinga's argument N is ontological naturalism and the structure of the argument is that evolution (E) relies on Ontological naturalism and Methodological naturalism to be held true whereas ontological naturalism poses problems for evolution and vice versa.

To restate my retort more clearly - it is that he is inferring the issue between ontological naturalism and evolution (which is also reliant on methodological naturalism) without regard to methodological naturalism.

If you boil it down you can find that the defeater originates in the step from ontological naturalism to methodological naturalism and is, it would seem, put there quite deliberately. Naturalism is a self-questioning structure.

If you adopt ontological naturalism - ie there is no supernatural and step to methodological naturalism - seek confirmation/refutation in the natural world. You can see that methodological naturalism is equipped with a defeater for ontological naturalism anyway. So, that evolution, a compilation of methodological naturalistic study, challenges ontological naturalism is hardly a surprise outcome by any stretch of the imagination. 

On the other hand what the challenge of evolution implies is hardly cause to insert God either, the inscrutable chance of cognitive reliability isn't any more solved by God than it is by Ontological naturalism. But it is taken in hand by methodological naturalism, that is, at least methodological naturalism is an honest attempt at facing up to the reality and is inclined to treat it's synthetic components as synthetic; that the same can be said for the Christian God is insult to integrity, it's just plain vapid.

But don't you see? It was a miracle! He managed to crucify himself magically through the power of the Illogical Argument! All praise Plantinga!

ELIZA was utterly unconvincing, though to be fair it dates from the late 1960s (I had it on my 1980s era C64. ) The most recent bots I've seen it is still very easy to know it's a computer within a minute or 2. Of course thinking an obvious joke is a real and good argument for God is either a parody or the ultimate epic fail.

Yeah I think BMcD, as I am attached to this earth, Plantinga's conclusions become just more confusion, bit I think he is helpful in diminishing self doubt , that we are , in fact god .... and so there is nothing to erect as an idol of worship. That is not to say we don't have our favorite things, Pleasure, love, desires, dreams, and wanting  peace of mind.

Inspector, you have made a couple of points in very confident fashion that I think you are clearly unable to substantiate. You are appealing to the biases of the board in the hope that they will not ask you for evidence, argument, or backing. Sadly, they have proven you right. I will not.

Totally inaccurate. This barely deserves a response. Plantinga is one of the most influential living intellectuals. QUENTIN SMITH said this about him: "The secularization of mainstream academia began to quickly unravel upon the publication of Plantinga’s influential book on realist theism, God and Other Minds, in 1967. It became apparent to the philosophical profession that this book displayed that realist theists were not outmatched by naturalists in terms of the most valued standards of analytic philosophy: conceptual precision, rigor of argumentation, technical erudition, and an in-depth defense of an original world-view. This book, followed seven years later by Plantinga’s even more impressive book, The Nature of Necessity, made it manifest that a realist theist was writing at the highest qualitative level of analytic philosophy, on the same playing field as Carnap, Russell, Moore, Grünbaum, and other naturalists. Realist theists, whom hitherto had segregated their academic lives from their private lives, increasingly came to believe (and came to be increasingly accepted or respected for believing) that arguing for realist theism in scholarly publications could no longer be justifiably regarded as engaging in an “academically unrespectable” scholarly pursuit." (source) A quick search of Smith's website will reveal that he mentions Plantinga in many of his papers, often in reverent tones.

Wait, do you even know who Quentin Smith is? He's the head honcho of atheism in America. Big philosopher. King of the naturalists. He is the sort of intellectual that actually takes the time to read his opponents. Notice the sort of respect he radiates? That is what happens when you are exposed to the full intellectual power of the new theistic arguments. Even if you are not converted, and he surely isn't, you gain a respect for theism qua intellectual position.

I would have thought this too bare an assertion to slip by any audience, even the readers of the RRS. Surely, I thought, one of your fellow atheists has the courage to point out that you do not show how Mr. Plantinga commits this fallacy, where in the argument the fallacy occurs, which premise or premises contain the flaw. Surely, I imagined, someone here will realise that Mr. Plantinga is a philosopher of epistemology, a man whose very job description includes the study of phenomena like the base rate fallacy, and therefore exert themselves to actually check and see if he commits it. Alas, a review of this thread shows that none did.

Well, even if you can slip it past a friendly audience, it won't get by me. So: How, specifically, does the EAAN commit a base rate fallacy?

Yes, of course, I forgot that all atheists are brave lonely individualist types, striking out against the oppressive theocracy that is modern America.  Please.

Presuppositionalist

 I am god, I am atheist, what's your point? Is my oxymoron your bitch?

Presuppositionalist

 I am god, I am atheist, what's your point? Is my oxymoron your bitch? Bring me any idol to worship as is in any religion or philosophy, and you will have discovered my reason to bitch.

And when did I claim to be striking against anyone? Or, for that matter, a brave and lonely individualist? I'm a skeptic. You want me to believe in what you say, prove it. This goes for Dawkins, Smith, Hitchens (and believe me, with Hitchens' record on the geopolitical areas he claims to be so knowledgable on, it goes doubly for him), just as it does for you, or Ratzinger, or Dobson. It's got nothing to do with being an 'individualist' (just like everybody else!), it has to do with being a skeptic.

Thanks buddha  Bob.   ~~~~~

I think all there is, ever was, ever will be as evolutionary, with successes and failures depending on it's perspective. I simply can't imagine a beginning, a creator, a state of nothing, no matter how I try. Who would pretend to know? Religion pretends.

This just leads me back to how silly and then destructive religion is to our wish to understand what we, and everything IS. No more religion. Geezzz  .... To be traditionally religious, is to sadly be blind, to the awe, the miracle in all things.  What is dirt? What is an atom? The blind make dogma up .... What isn't a miracle, or may I say gawed !!!  ???           To heal the enemy, love as, to understand the enemy .... to heal the blind ..... !!!!

     Damn right Jesus can save, but you gotta get your Jesus right .....