works
Branden Fitelson and Elliott Sober Plantinga's probability arguments against evolutionary naturalism article In Chapter 12 of Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Plantinga constructs two arguments against evolutionary naturalism, which he construes as a conjunction E&N. The hypothesis E says that “human cognitive faculties arose by way of the mechanisms to which contemporary evolutionary thought directs our attention” (p. 220). With respect to proposition N, Plantinga (p. 270) says “it isn’t easy to say precisely what naturalism is,” but then adds that “crucial to metaphysical naturalism, of course, is the view that there is no such person as the God of Traditional theism.” Plantinga tries to cast doubt on the conjunction E&N in two ways.

Plantinga's probability arguments against evolutionary naturalism

Branden Fitelson and Elliott Sober

Pacific philosophical quarterly, vol. 79, no. 2, 1998, pp. 115–129

Abstract

In Chapter 12 of Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Plantinga constructs two arguments against evolutionary naturalism, which he construes as a conjunction E&N. The hypothesis E says that “human cognitive faculties arose by way of the mechanisms to which contemporary evolutionary thought directs our attention” (p. 220). With respect to proposition N, Plantinga (p. 270) says “it isn’t easy to say precisely what naturalism is,” but then adds that “crucial to metaphysical naturalism, of course, is the view that there is no such person as the God of Traditional theism.” Plantinga tries to cast doubt on the conjunction E&N in two ways.

PDF

First page of PDF