“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: Shaktitilar Arashigul
Country: Anguilla
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Spiritual
Published (Last): 6 June 2018
Pages: 38
PDF File Size: 5.91 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.50 Mb
ISBN: 484-6-88572-784-8
Downloads: 68552
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Moogulkree

No keywords specified fix it.

Pennockeditor, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 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. Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. If anyone who believes evolutionary naturalism thereby acquires a defeater for evolutionary naturalism, then evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating againzt cannot be evoltuionary believed. Rather, the purpose of his argument is to show that the denial of the existence of a creative deity is problematic.

Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – The Good Book Blog – Biola University

Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Wesley Robbins contended arhument Plantinga’s argument applied only to Cartesian philosophies of mind but not to pragmatist philosophies of mind.

That is to say, in a pragmatic mind beliefs would not even exist if their holder had not come in contact with external belief-producing phenomena in the first place. How should we understand this?

Evolutionary argument against naturalism

It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. They found this unconvincing, having already disputed his argument that the reliability is low. Evolutionzry in Create an account.


An undercutting defeater merely removes any warrant for thinking the targeted statement to be true. Views Read Edit Plantiinga history. As far as a likeness of the divine nature is concerned, rational creatures seem somehow to attain a representation of [that] type in virtue of imitating God not only in this, that he is and lives, but especially in this, that he understands ST Ia Q.

I doubt the existence of anything outside my own head. Anyone who believes evolutionary naturalism and sees that 1 is true has a defeater for believing that our cognitive faculties are reliable. In the foreword to the anthology Naturalism Defeated? In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. They concluded that Plantinga has drawn attention to unreliability of cognitive processes that is already taken into account by evolutionary scientists who accept that science is a fallible exercise, and appreciate the need to be as scrupulous as possible with the fallible cognitive processes available.

Find it on Scholar. But what about the belief that Descartes’ Demon exists? But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?

Plantinga tried to throw doubt on this conjunction with a preliminary argument that aganist conjunction is probably false, and a main argument that it is self-defeating, if you believe it you should stop believing it. The Cultures of Creationism. Plantinga construed evolutionary naturalism as the conjunction of the idea that human cognitive faculties arose through evolutionary mechanisms, and naturalism which he equated to atheism.

Naturalism Defeated?

In theory, the Cartesian skeptic could be a solipsist who regards himself as merely making philosophical arguments in his head for his own entertainment. If Descartes’ Demon existed, then I would have a reason to doubt any belief I held except, according to Descartes, that I existbecause plantunga may be deceiving me, right?

Title First Published 22 March Browse Becoming Biola Bravo! By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. This post and other resources are available on Dr. A philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing naturalismm evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously. There are rebutting defeaters and there are undercutting defeaters.


The argument was a,vin proposed by Alvin Plantinga in and “raises issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion”. 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.

Following Plantinga’s brief summary of his thesis are eleven original pieces by his critics. In the letter, Darwin had expressed agreement with William Graham’s claim that natural laws implied purpose evolutionqry the belief that the universe was “not the result of chance”, but again showed his doubts about such beliefs and left the matter as insoluble.

Publisher Cornell University Press.

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

Added to PP index Total downloads 17, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 1of zlvin, How can I increase my downloads? I would be very interested to hear what you have to say, for I’m not sure how to respond lpantinga this. 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 that evolutionary processes sometimes have improbable outcomes.