One obvious comment: Plantinga accepts the discovery by evolutionary psychologists that humans are prone to detect agents even where none are present. Surely this alone doubly destroys his argument that our ability to think rationally refutes naturalism. For it concedes *both* that our heuristics are the product of evolution, and *also* that they lead us at times to think illogically. I have read PLANTINGA's argument that survival would have been served as well by a concatenation of errors as by recognition of reality, and no doubt there are some special environments (such as university philosophy departments) where this is true, but such environments are few and far between.
One obvious comment: Plantinga accepts the discovery by evolutionary psychologists that humans are prone to detect agents even where none are present. Surely this alone doubly destroys his argument that our ability to think rationally refutes naturalism. For it concedes *both* that our heuristics are the product of evolution, and *also* that they lead us at times to think illogically. I have read PLANTINGA's argument that survival would have been served as well by a concatenation of errors as by recognition of reality, and no doubt there are some special environments (such as university philosophy departments) where this is true, but such environments are few and far between.