PDF | On May 1, , Maarten Boudry and others published Alvin Plantinga: Where the Conflict Really Lies. Science, Religion and. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Jim Slagle. Burgemeestersstraat 16/, B‐ Leuven. Plantinga’s book is a semi-popular treatment of the conflicts, real or perceived, between science and religion, broadly construed. Because these disciplines are .

Author: Shagar Dairisar
Country: Tanzania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 20 June 2012
Pages: 421
PDF File Size: 17.32 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.8 Mb
ISBN: 815-1-26003-535-9
Downloads: 15219
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vuzilkree

I am usually on Plantinga’s side when it comes to defending religion against de jure objections, i. The EAAN shows that it is self-referentially incoherent to believe in both evolution and naturalism.

There is a point in your faith journey where mathematical and logical intellectual arguments of this nature cease to be interesting, or even relevant, against the knowing fullness of life experiences in Christ. Plantinga is one of the greatest philosophers’ alive today.

Plantinga on Where the Conflict Really Lies | Evolution News

I realize this is typical academic rubbish that philosophers like to draw on, but propositional logic is not helpful at all in this text, IMO. Plantinga’s definition of “evolution” includes an ancient earth, the appearance of increasingly complex life forms over time, and descent with modification from a common ancestor. Plantinga argues that we might think about arguments in science and religion in a new way — as different forms of discourse that try to persuade people to look at questions from a perspective such that they can see that something is true.

Good points though for, like I said, being successful in his argument. Plantinga, unfashionably, argues the case for the real conflict being not between science and theism but between science and naturalism. Some mild familiarity with technical language and formal language is helpful, but for the most part, Plantinga is very clear. And his flawed understanding of evolutionary theory often sounds much too close to the picture “social” Darwinists use, seeing it too simply that every trait must be adaptive when so often they are vestigial or transformed from earlier links in the chain.

Promoting such a war has enabled many on both sides, fundamentalist creationists and fundamentalist atheists, to sell a lot of books.

Moreover in the last part is the major contribution, which I am still trying to digest: Perhaps I should add that while the author’s Christianity didn’t bother me I was a little turned off by his heavy use of propositional logic. And he is exceptionally partial when it comes to his use probabilities.

Three implications of this definition are worth mentioning.

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

Based on the reviews here, I guess it must be because the only people that read what he’s written conflicf DO agree, wnere it’s an easy sale! A set of beautifully constructed epistemic and good’ol philosophical arguments to defy wheere popular thesis toward which Geally did lean to at some point that science and religion contradict each other. That certainly leaves a lot of room for God’s involvement. Part 2 deals with superfifical conflict: There are, I suspect, plausible analyses of the term “random mutation” according to which mutations caused by God specifically for the purpose of increasing fitness would not be random.


Since Plantinga does not want to limit “conflict” to “logical incompatibility,” it seems that he should take this probabilistic argument much more seriously than he does, especially since some structurally similar arguments are judged by him to provide non-negligible support for theism in the part of the book on concord between science and theistic religion.

You need some understanding of basic biology, physics, statistics, philosophy, theology, and maybe mathematics or else Plantinga will quickly lose you. At best it would show, given a whsre of assumptions, that it is not astronomically improbable that the living world was produced by unguided evolution and hence without design. Too Many Statements in Parentheses – There are parenthetical statements statements enclosed in parentheses galore. If you are comfortable with persuasive arguments beginning with “because we human beings have been created in the image of God,” then read on.

Lewis called “mere Christianity,” and crucially includes in this definition, not just the liez that human beings are created in God’s image, but an interpretation of that doctrine according to which it implies that humans resemble God by virtue of being persons who can understand and know things about ourselves, the world, and God.

View all 3 comments.

Basically this book has been highly influential on me and my thinking in this whole area. As we all know, the commanding heights of culture, including academia, are now largely hostile to theism and Christianity.

Open Preview See a Problem? An additional concern is that Plantinga’s inference from “this conflict does not give religious theists a defeater” to “this conflict is superficial” is rather obviously fallacious. Many members of theistic religions believe that God directly acts in the world, for example, by performing miracles. Plantinga helps by setting This book is an attempt to show that, at the end of the day, while there may be some conflict between religion specifically, the Christian religion and science, that conflict is superficial ; it is the conflict between science and naturalism that is deep and substantive.

We simply see it and believe it is there. I think this is a very important idea to grasp. But what I love about this book, besides the beautifully delicate construction of its arguments, is its deep sense of humour: In comparison to the abstraction of love, no amount of ciphering is going to bring one into a full knowledge of God.


Here Plantinga takes science, the belief in evolution, and naturalism, the belief that there is nothing outside of nature. There will always be those who choose to be rfally blind, whatever their world view may be. Plantinga is one of a small group of Christian analytic philosophers who emerged on the scene in the late s and became more influential over the years.

Christians should have a particularly high regard for science, and Plantinga is one of the clearest thinkers of our time in this area. His faith is always tangential to his arguments, and his arguments are really quite impressi I’m wondering if I can still honestly call myself an atheist. Why not make heaven? It does not impair my belief. Quotes from Where the Conflic Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make.

Plantinga argues that there is no inherent conflict between quantum mechanics and divine intervention, and that even the most stunning miracles are not clearly inconsistent with the laws of science.

It tickles my fancy. Chapter 5 Evolutionary Psychology and Scripture Scholarship. plantingw

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism – Oxford Scholarship

Suppose, further, God has endowed human selves and perhaps other agents as well with the power to act freely, freely cause events in the physical world.

So while the crucial claims made by evolutionary psychologists and historical biblical critics may very well be probable relative to the evidence base to which evolutionary psychologists and historical biblical critics are restricted, those claims are not probable relative to the evidence base of Christians, which includes the alleged deliverances of the sensus divinitatis as well as a host of alleged truths supposedly revealed to Christians in scripture.

In a natural world your desire to get a drink of water is driven by your biological need for water. To ask other readers questions about Where the Conflict Really Liesplease sign up. It is an image that believers recognize, subscribe to, and seek to emulate.