Alvin Plantinga has famously argued that the naturalist who accepts evolutionary theory has a defeater for all of her beliefs, including her belief in naturalism and evolution. Hence, he says, naturalism, when conjoined with evolution, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally accepted. This is known as the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN). However, Tyler Wunder (Religious Studies 51:391–399, 2015 ) has recently shown that if the EAAN is framed in terms of objective probability and theism is assumed to be non-contingent, then either theism is necessarily false or the EAAN is unsound. Neither option is attractive to the proponent of the EAAN. Perry Hendricks (Religious Studies 1–5, 2018 ) has responded to Wunder’s criticism, showing that the EAAN can be salvaged and, indeed, strengthened, by framing it in terms not of naturalism (N), but of a proposition that is entailed by N that is also consistent with theism. We will show that once Hendricks’ solution to Wunder’s objection is accepted, a puzzle ensues: if the EAAN provides the naturalist with a defeater for all of her beliefs, then an extension of it appears to provide God with a defeater for all of his beliefs. After bringing out this puzzle, we suggest several ways in which the proponent of the EAAN might solve it, but also show some potential weaknesses in these purported solutions. Whether the solutions to the puzzle that we consider ultimately succeed is unclear to us. (Translation: the authors disagree. One author thinks that the solutions (or, at least, some of them) that we consider do solve the puzzle while the other author does not.) However, it is clear to us that this is an issue that proponents of the EAAN need to address.

中文翻译：

---

反对自然主义的进化论是否打败了上帝的信仰？

阿尔文·普兰廷加 (Alvin Plantinga) 曾著名地辩称，接受进化论的博物学家对她的所有信仰都有一个失败者，包括她对自然主义和进化的信仰。因此，他说，当自然主义与进化结合时，会弄巧成拙，不能被理性接受。这被称为反对自然主义的进化论（EAAN）。然而，Tyler Wunder (Religious Studies 51:391–399, 2015) 最近表明，如果 EAAN 是根据客观概率构建的，并且假设有神论是非偶然的，那么要么有神论必然是错误的，要么 EAAN 是不健全的. 这两种选择对 EAAN 的支持者都没有吸引力。Perry Hendricks（宗教研究 1-5，2018 年）回应了 Wunder 的批评，表明 EAAN 可以通过非自然主义 (N) 的框架来挽救和加强，而是一个由 N 蕴涵的命题，它也与有神论相一致。我们将证明，一旦 Hendricks 对 Wunder 的反对的解决方案被接受，就会出现一个难题：如果 EAAN 为博物学家提供了她所有信仰的失败者，那么它的扩展似乎为上帝提供了他所有信仰的失败者. 在提出这个难题之后，我们建议了 EAAN 的支持者可以解决它的几种方法，但也显示了这些所谓的解决方案中的一些潜在弱点。对于我们认为最终成功的难题的解决方案，我们尚不清楚。（翻译：作者不同意。一位作者认为我们考虑的解决方案（或至少其中一些）确实解决了这个难题，而另一位作者则没有。）然而，