“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).

Author: Dur Tezahn
Country: Cameroon
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 24 May 2012
Pages: 37
PDF File Size: 4.79 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.42 Mb
ISBN: 552-1-74594-680-9
Downloads: 26232
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Douzilkree

Alvin Plantinga, “An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism&quot – PhilPapers

Views Read Edit View history. Plantinga’s claim is that one who holds to the truth of both naturalism and evolution is irrational in doing so. According to the first, content supervenes upon NP properties; according to the second, content is reducible to NP properties.

That is because if God has created us in his image, then even if he fashioned us by some evolutionary means, he would presumably want us to resemble him in being able to know; but then most of what we believe might be true even if our minds have developed from those of the lower animals. In a paper Branden Fitelson of the University of California, Berkeley and Elliott Sober of the University of Wisconsin—Madison set out to show that the arguments presented by Plantinga contain serious errors.

Evolution of Phenomena in Philosophy of Biology. The Current Status of the Philosophy of Biology. Read the book and decide for yourself. Science Logic and Mathematics. Added to PP index Total downloads 17, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 1of 2, How can I increase my downloads? We are all indebted to Beilby who has deepened agzinst sophistication of a growing discussion of evolutionary epistemology.

This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way evolurionary true belief. Plantinga asserted that the traditional theist believes being made in God’s image includes a reflection of divine powers as a knower, but cognitive science finds human reasoning subject to biases and systematic error.


In a chapter titled ‘The New Creationism: It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map agaknst London. Thus, Plantinga argued, the probability that our minds are reliable under a conjunction of philosophical naturalism and naturalistic evolution is low or inscrutable. Oxford University Press Inc. Take Up and Read: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. They described how Plantinga set out various scenarios of belief affecting evolutionary success, but undercut the low probability he previously required when he suggested an “inscrutable” probability, and by ignoring availability of variants he fails to show that false beliefs will be equally adaptive as his claim of low probability assumes.

Anyone who believes evolutionary naturalism and sees that 1 is true has a defeater for believing that our cognitive faculties are reliable. The argument for this is that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties are low.

Naturalism Defeated?, Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism

To be honest, even if Plantinga’s argument [the EAAN] worked, I would still want to know where theism ends and what form this theism must take and where science can take over. Request removal from index. This page was last edited on 11 Octoberat naturqlism Plantinga’s argument attempted to show that to combine naturalism and evolution is self-defeating, because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable.

Sign in to use this feature.

Publisher Cornell Qgainst Press. Sign in Create an account. The idea that “naturalism” undercuts its own justification was put forward by Arthur Balfour. I doubt the existence of anything outside my own head.

Naturalism Defeated?

Plantinga has stated that EAAN is not directed against “the theory of evolution, or the claim that human beings have evolved from simian ancestors, or anything in that neighborhood”. How should we understand this?

Craig – – Erkenntnis 40 3: Arguments for Theism, Misc in Philosophy of Religion. Alvin Plantinga University of Notre Dame. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else.


Plantinga stated that from a materialist’s point of view a belief will be a neuronal event.

Only in rational creatures is there found a likeness of God which counts as an image. This post and other resources are available on Dr.

David Reiter – – Journal of Philosophical Research Notes Introductory to the Study of Theology, 8th ed. I highly recommend its use with upper-level undergraduates through faculty. Perhaps this starts gradually and early on possibly C. The point remains that I could never have a good reason to think that I am deceived by an evil demon.

“An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism&quot

Plantinga, Alvin, Tooley, Michael In theory, the Cartesian skeptic could be a solipsist who regards himself as merely making philosophical arguments in his head for his own entertainment. Title First Againsy 22 March Evolutionary Biology in Philosophy of Biology. They considered his sentiment that high probability is required for rational belief to be repudiated by philosophical lessons such as the lottery paradoxand that each step in his argument requires principles different from those he had described.

He claimed that argumdnt Darwin himself had worries along these lines” and quoted from an letter: University of California Press. Firstly, they criticised Plantinga’s use of a Bayesian framework in which he arbitrarily assigned initial probabilities without empirical evidencepredetermining the outcome in favor of alvij theism, and described this as a recipe for replacing any non-deterministic theory in the ebolutionary sciences, so that for example a probable outcome predicted by quantum mechanics would be seen as the outcome of God’s will.

By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.