Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism

[Silent3]

8. I'm trying to stick to the terms set up by Plantinga

My example with a bear is very much like Plantinga's own example with a tiger. He was casting doubt even on the things you might believe even in basic life-or-death survival situations. Plantinga himself was not making a survival vs. non-survival belief distinction.

If you want to have a separate argument about whether there are different categories of thought in which humans are competent, and others which they are not... well, that's certainly possible. Even likely. But there's no "gotcha" there for someone who favors naturalistic evolution, no compelling reason to assume thoughts about about naturalism are among those which are beyond evolutionarily-generated mental competence.