PLANTINGAS CASE AGAINST NATURALISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY

In Warrant and Propel Function, Alvin Plantinga claims that metaphysic al naturalism, when joined to a naturalized epistemology, is self-unde rmining. Plantinga argues that naturalists are committed to a neoDarwi nian account of our origins, and that the reliability of our cognitive faculties is improbable or unknown relative to that theory. If the th eory is true, then we are in no position to know that, whereas theism, if true, underwrites cognitive reliability. I seek to turn the tables on Plantinga, showing that neoDarwinism provides strong reasons for e xpecting general cognitive reliability, whereas the likelihood of that relative to theism is unknowable.