Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index.
Alvin Plantinga: Where the Conflict Really Lies. Science, Religion and Naturalism
Revision history. Google Books no proxy Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy. Configure custom resolver. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
What is Kobo Super Points?
John Locke - - Oxford University Press. Oliver D. Rea eds. The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion.
- Treatise on Geophysics: Mantle Dynamics.
- Frenchtown Summer.
- Content Metrics!
- Account Options.
Peter Harrison ed. Broad - - Philosophy 14 54 Galileo, Science and the Church. Jerome J. Langford - Ethics and Evolutionary Theory. Erik J.
Where the Conflict Really Lies
Wielenberg - - Analysis 76 4 Justin L. Church - - The Monist 96 3 John Schneider - - Zygon 47 4 Bradford McCall - - Minds and Machines 24 3 Alvin Plantinga - - In Michael Ruse ed. Princeton University Press. Marin Mahner - - In Michael R. Matthews ed. Science, Religion, and Naturalism.
See a Problem?
Ulrich Schmidt - - Metaphysica 13 2 By Alvin Plantinga. Jaeger - - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 87 4 - Reviewed By. But asserting that such a position is consistent with science is beyond the pale.
Theories in science propose interpretations of partial sets of facts, until additional facts are ascertained that either confirm the theory or force modifications. The notion of an omnipotent deity quite simply goes against too many known facts about the universe. The ones that point out weakness in a scientific theory will either result in an effective rebuttal or a refinement of the theory. Noteworthy from the standpoint of humanism, Plantinga begins by asserting that evolution is compatible with theism.
That argument itself is a major concession to science. Without much ado, he tosses the creationists overboard. However, when necessary to support his arguments on this and other points, he repeatedly changes the definition of what theism is to fit the scientific principles.
In case after case, he comes up with some possible religious tenet, or human interpretation of one, that is compatible with a particular scientific principle. Instead, it carves out religion as an exception or parallel universe to science. His assertion that science and naturalism are incompatible pushes his aim to a different level. In the end, his argument is all bluster, based on the sole assertion that naturalism and evolution are incompatible.
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism - Alvin Plantinga - Google книги
Tellingly, his attack relies on another combination of cherry-picked definitions of naturalistic knowledge, confused premises, and unfounded assumptions. Worse, his argument focuses on the wrong proof. As he argues, the probability that a human belief is true will be low if naturalism and evolution are both true. Thus, he mistakenly equates reliability of cognitive faculties with accuracy of beliefs. Not so coincidentally, his conclusion is correct under established science of human development as applied in one respect: infants.
The reliability of their beliefs is low. In the most positive light, perhaps his conflation of reliability of cognitive faculties with accuracy of beliefs causes him to again ignore a defining faculty of advanced forms of life: induction.