Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism And Sosa's critique and Plantinga's response

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Student

2 philosophy, Islamic philosophy, university of religions and denominations, Qom

Abstract

Alvin Plantinga, on the relationship between science and religion, has two general approaches: defensive and aggressive. In the first approach, he tries to show that there is no deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But in the second approach, it seeks to show that, contrary to popular opinion, there is a profound conflict between science and naturalism. He puts forward an argument called "evolutionary argument against naturalism." The main idea of his argument is that the probability of the reliability of the cognitive capacity of man with the acceptance of the combination of naturalism and the theory of evolution is low, and this includes all beliefs produced by the cognitive capacity of man, including the very belief in naturalism. Therefore, the simultaneous acceptance of naturalism and the theory of evolution is not reasonable , While this problem does not exist in the simultaneous acceptance of theism and evolutionary theory. Plantinga's argument has come up with many reactions and criticisms. Ernest Sosa has written two criticisms. By referring to Descartes and distinguishing between non-reflective and reflectivel knowledge; By referring to Descartes and distinguishing between non-formal and informal knowledge, he considers Plantinga to be essentially concerned with reflective knowledge and considers it to be incorrect; in Sosa's view, the status of theism and naturalism is the same. Plantinga, on the other hand, sees the main problem in reflctive knowledge, and believes that theism is better than naturalism, because naturalism is confronted with a defeater.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
1. Amirian, Mehdi, (2013) "Extraversion in Content and its Relationship with the Theory of Identity of Mind and Body", Mind, No. 56, pp. 75-92.
2. Baker, Deane-Peter, (2007), Alvin Plantinga, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Barbour, Ian, (2013), Religion and Science, translated by Pirooz Fatoorchi, Tehran: Research Institute for Culture and Islamic Thought.
4. Beilby, James, (2002), Naturalism Defeated, New York: Cornel University Press.
5. Dawkins, Richard, (2009), Blind Watchmaker, translated by Mahmoud Behzad and Shahal Bagheri, Tehran: Maziar.
6. Dennett, Daniel, (1995), Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
7. Djedovic, Alex, (2011), “Examining Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism”, Academia.
8. Ebadi, Aazam, (2005), "Study of the Theory of Evolution based on Viewpoints of Alvin Plantinga", Islamic Education Association, 2(1), pp. 175-192.
9.Fitelson, Branden & Sober, Elliot, (1988), “Plantinga's Probability Argument Against Evolutionary Naturalism”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
10.Gould, Stephen Jay,(1977), Ever Since Darwin, New York: Norton, p.267.
11. Hodges J.r., J. and L., Lehmann, (1992), Basic Concepts of Probability and Statistics, translated by Siamak Nourblochi, Tehran: Avaye Nour.
 
12. Lau, Joe & Deutsch, Max, (2014), “Externalism About Mental Content”; in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-externalism.
13. Morvarid, Mahmoud, (2010), "Extraversion and the Proof of Slow Displacement", Naghd va Nazar, 15(2), pp. 89-133.
14. McLaughlin, Brian and Bennett, Karen, (2018), “Supereminence”, in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/supervenience.
15. Plantinga, Alvin, (1991), When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible, Hamilton: Redeemer College.
16. Plantinga, Alvin, (1993), Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Plantinga, Alvin, (1994), “Naturalism Defeated”, Calvin College' Site.
18. Plantinga, Alvin, (2002), “Reply to Beilby’s Cohorts”, in Naturalism Defeated, ed. James Beilby, New York: Cornel University Press, pp. 206-276.
19. Plantinga, Alvin, (2003), "Probability and Defeaters", Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 84, pp. 291-298.
20. Plantinga, Alvin, (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 21. Reppert, Victor, (2003), C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea, In Defense of the Argument from Reason, (s.l.): Touchstone Books.
22. Sosa, Ernest, & Van Cleve, James, (1999), “Thomas Reid”, in The Modern Philosophers: From Descartes to Nietzsche, ed. Steven Emmanuel, Oxford: Blackwell.
23. Sosa, Ernest, & Van Cleve, James, (2002), “Plantinga’s Evolutionary Meditations”, in Naturalism Defeated, ed. James Beilby, New York: Cornel university press. pp.91-102.
24. Sosa, Ernest, & Van Cleve, James, (2007). “Natural Theology and Naturalist Antheology: Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism” in Alvin Plantinga, ed. Baker, Deane-Peter, Cambridge University Press. pp.93-106.
25. Van Cleve, James, (2002), Can atheists know anything? In Naturalism Defeated, ed. James Beilby, New York: Cornel University Press.
26. Xu, Y., (2010), "The Troublesome Explanandum in Plantinga’s Argument against Naturalism', International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Doi: 10.1007/s11153-010-9228-7.
27. Ye, F., (2011), "Naturalized Truth and Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism". Doi: 10.1007/s11153-011-9290-9.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics