摘要
Alvin Plantinga＇s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism （hereafter ＂EAAN＂） is an argument intended to prove that atheism is not highly probably true in the Darwinian framework. Many critics believe that this argument Cannot work. I am one of them; but I have a different perspective. In my view, although EAAN was originally elaborated for defending theism, the failure of EAAN itself will not consequently undermine theism （as a religious position）, but will definitely undermine reliabilism （as an epistemological position）. My points include： （1） in Plantinga＇s epistemological reliabilist narrative, it is quite hard to clarify the meaning of the term ＂reliability＂ （as a key word of his whole narrative）, and it is the ambiguity of this term that makes some steps in Plantinga＇s argument more confusing than it ought to be; （2） conversely, if he wiped out this terminological ambiguity, the whole EAANnarrative based on ＂reliability＂ would have to be given up, and this cost may be too high for any EAANadherent to pay.
