In this project, I defend Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism from Blake Roeber's use of the inscrutability argument. I argue that Roeber's criticism does not account for all species of religious practice. The primary subject is in reference to a criticism against religious beliefs which says that religious belief is little more than successful social or evolutionary adaptation in believing agents, here after referred to as the Genetic Criticism of Religion. I argue that a successful reply to his criticism shows that there are actually two modes of religious belief, which can be distinguished at least in part, by the motivation of the believing agent. Each mode has distinct implications for the reliability of human faculties. One way in which we might understand this distinction is through an account of motivation proper to the proper function of the believing agent. I conclude by arguing that Roeber's inscrutability argument is only successful with respect to one mode but not the other.