Clica una miniatura per anar a Google Books.
|
S'està carregant… Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (edició 2011)de Alvin Plantinga (Autor)
Informació de l'obraWhere the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism de Alvin Plantinga
   Cap
 FrankHubeny | Oct 11, 2023 |    ) christ_s | Aug 5, 2022 | HCC_ResourceLibrary | Jan 12, 2019 | I felt that I didn't learn much from this book except his method of showing that there isn't a real conflict. (  ) gottfried_leibniz | Apr 5, 2018 | I felt that I didn't learn much from this book except his method of showing that there isn't a real conflict. ( ) gottfried_leibniz | Apr 5, 2018 |
 The extensive use of logical trickery is one of the most irritating aspects of this book. At some point in chapter 3, Plantinga pretends to prove that determinism is “necessarily false”, but the formalization of determinism he starts out with is obviously wrong. The trick is pulled off with two nested conditionals in the first premise: at that point, the rabbit is already smuggled in the hat, and what follows is just formalistic window dressing. Formalization can be a means to provide clarity and rigor to an argument, and thus to enhance a philosophical debate. Alas, it can also be misused as a rhetorical ploy to disguise non-sequiturs under a tapestry of symbols. This is analytic philosophy at its worst. The upshot of the argument in this book, according to Plantinga, is that theism is “vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism” and that this belief in an invisible creator “deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview’” (no worries about “metaphysical add-ons” this time). This is sheer rhetorical bluster. Naturalism emerges unscathed from Plantinga’s attack, and he has done nothing that comes even close of averting the conflict between science and religion. This book will not impress anyone except those who were already convinced that science and religion can live in peaceful harmony, and even in those accommodationist quarters, it seems to have put some people off (Ruse, 2012). If this is the best that sophisticated defenders of theism can come up with, God is in very dire straits indeed.
This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord. Plantinga examines where this conflict is supposed to exist -- evolution, evolutionary psychology, analysis of scripture, scientific study of religion -- as well as claims by Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Philip Kitcher that evolution and theistic belief cannot co-exist. Plantinga makes a case that their arguments are not only inconclusive but that the supposed conflicts themselves are superficial, due to the methodological naturalism used by science. On the other hand, science can actually offer support to theistic doctrines, and Plantinga uses the notion of biological and cosmological "fine-tuning" in support of this idea. 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. In this way, there is a deep and massive consonance between theism and the scientific enterprise. No s'han trobat descripcions de biblioteca. |
Debats actualsCapCobertes populars
 Google Books — S'està carregant…GèneresClassificació Decimal de Dewey (DDC)231.7Religions Christian doctrinal theology God; Unity; Trinity Relation to the world - divine law and miraclesLCC (Clas. Bibl. Congrés EUA)ValoracióMitjana: (3.58)
Ets tu?Fes-te Autor del LibraryThing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plantinga's defence of religion
1
Plantinga accepts the story of evolution as true. That's his mistake. Since he is also a Christian he now has to rationalize his alleged belief in the Bible with his belief in evolution and the deep time supposedly needed to make it work. He does this with the notion of evolution being "guided" by some god giving the atheistic tale a theistic sugar-coating.
I will admit that philosophically some god could have guided evolution. That is, you could use that as an axiom grounding a philosophical fantasy land. However, no matter what some hypothetical god might have done, given the Bible, the Christian God did nothing of the sort. Just read Genesis.
What Plantinga's book shows is the success of evolution as an anti-theistic propaganda device. Even people professionally interested in analytic rationality, like him, have fallen for it.
Evolution is not science. There is no real scientific mechanism that takes us from nothing to something or from something to life -- or from pond scum to human beings.
It is like building a house of cards. The builder is a creator, a human being. The house falls under naturalistic processes identified by real scientists as gravity with a gust of wind perhaps coming through the door. No matter how much time you give those non-creative, mindless gusts of wind or gravity hoping they will one day go backwards and build the house of cards, they never will -- never.
However, that is precisely what evolution wants you to believe is possible. And that is what Plantinga is sugar-coating in this book with his deception that evolution could be "guided". Why would any self-respecting God guide naturalistic processes that do not exist? (