“An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism”. Alvin Plantinga · Logos. Anales Del Seminario de Metafísica [Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España]. Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (EAAN) begins with the following simple idea: the evolutionary process of natural selection selects. In his recently published two-volume work in epistemology,1 Alvin Plantinga . probabilistic argument against naturalism – and for traditional theism” (p).
|Published (Last):||14 February 2017|
|PDF File Size:||14.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I have found this argument persuasive for many years now nearly seven. Plantinga argued that neural structures that constitute beliefs have contentin the following way: University of California Press.
A evolutionzry of essays entitled Naturalism Defeated? Publication Ithaca, United States. Almost a decade ago, Alvin Plantinga articulated his bold and controversial evolutionary argument against naturalism.
Craig – – Erkenntnis 40 3: Does Plantinga defeat naturalism? Philosophical arguments Epistemology of religion Philosophy of religion Naturalism philosophy.
Joe United States Dr. History of Western Philosophy. Beilby, editor of the volume, Plantinga’s proposition “raises issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion”. William Lane Craig’s website: Plantinga’s argument began with the observation that our beliefs can only have evolutionary consequences if they affect behaviour.
Alvin Plantinga, “An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" – PhilPapers
Plantinga on the Self-Defeat of Evolutionary Naturalism. Nathan – – Religious Studies 33 2: I’m familiar with a good deal of Plantinga’s published work and I’ve watched him present this argument at least a dozen times via youtube and once in personand I don’t recall ever hearing this objection raised.
Rather, the purpose of his argument is to show that the denial of the existence of a creative deity is problematic. The evolutionary argument against naturalism EAAN is a philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing both evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously. Lewis popularised it in the first edition of his book Miracles in In a chapter titled ‘The New Creationism: Retrieved from ” https: It might be true, but it cannot be rational to affirm it as such.
It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London.
Naturalism Defeated?, Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism
Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in argyment a mind? We are all indebted to Beilby who has deepened the sophistication of a growing discussion of evolutionary epistemology. Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it.
Evolution of Morality in Normative Ethics. Even if his claims of improbability were correct, that need not affect belief in evolution, and they considered it would be more sensible to accept arrgument evolutionary processes sometimes have improbable outcomes.
“An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism"
An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. These are usually the kinds of premises that the naturalist will use to argue empirically that naturalism is true. Arguments for Theism, Misc in Philosophy of Religion.
Plantinga’s claim is that one who holds to the truth of both naturalism and evolution is irrational in doing so. How should we understand this?
A philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing both evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously. Plantinga’s argument is aimed at metaphysical naturalism or roughly the view that no supernatural beings exist. Thus it seems that when I consider whether Descartes’ Demon exists, it may lead me to doubt the truth of all my other beliefs, but how could it lead me to doubt the existence of the demon itself, for if there were no demon, then obviously there would be no demon to trick me.
Oxford University Press Inc.