Debunking Plantinga: A Review of Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga

By Moore, William S. | Skeptic (Altadena, CA), Fall 2013 | Go to article overview

Debunking Plantinga: A Review of Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga


Moore, William S., Skeptic (Altadena, CA)


Oxford University Press, New York. 2011. 376 pp. $27.95

ISBN-13: 978-0199812097

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

ALL SCIENTISTS ARE NATURALISTS. WHEN we do experiments in the laboratory or field we assume that the phenomena we study are guided by natural law and solely by natural law. We are uniformitarians; uniformitarianism holds that natural law acts the same way at all times throughout the universe and is eternal. We take for granted that we live, experiment and study nature in a closed universe where God never intervenes. This is a first principle of science. So reading this book by Alvin Plantinga, a highly respected philosopher and epistemologist of religion with a great deal of savvy about science, that reaches the conclusion that there is deep conflict between naturalism and science but deep concord between theism and science, is a journey into a spooky intellectual landscape where this first principle of science is violated.

The die of Plantinga's argument is cast on the first page of the preface where he proclaims "Naturalism is stronger than atheism: you can be an atheist without rising to the full heights (sinking to the lowest depths?) of naturalism; but you can't be a naturalist without being an atheist." Between this opening salvo and his conclusion on the last page (350)--"naturalism is at least a quasi-religion, there is indeed a science/religion conflict all right, but it is not between science and theistic religion: it is between science and naturalism"--is an arduous trek through evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, historical biblical criticism, intelligent design, divine fine tuning of physical constants, and epistemology. The trek through epistemology is a steep one through the peculiar cultural lexicon of philosophers, with detours to establish the nature of warranted belief, rebutting defeaters (of arguments), undercutting defeaters, deflectors of defeaters and defeater-defeaters. One distinction Plantinga makes that actually has little influence on the practice of science is between methodological naturalism and rational naturalism. All scientists are at least methodological naturalists--we all make the assumption that God is not manipulating the experiments we do. But Plantinga identifies strident atheist-naturalists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchins and Sam Harris as rational naturalists whom he identifies as "the Four Horsemen--not of the Apocalypse, nor of Notre Dame, but of atheism with the goal of tiding roughshod over religion." (Plantinga retired recently from Notre Dame University.) This distinction is central to his argument; rational naturalists are atheists, and so naturalism must be in conflict with theistic religion, but being a scientist requires only that you be a methodological naturalist. You can be an agnostic or even a theist and be a methodological naturalist.

The theory of evolution by natural selection looms large in Plantinga's analysis, and he is particularly critical of Dawkins, who he says is not warranted in claiming that the science of evolutionary biology, as successful as it is, disproves the existence of God. He argues that the claim that evolution is a process unguided by an intelligent, theistic force is a metaphysical "add-on," an assumption evolutionists make, rather than a conclusion that can be drawn from the theory of evolution or a fact proven by empirical science. In my opinion, Plantinga's argument is actually right. Neo-Darwinism--the modern theory of evolution resulting from the conjunction of Darwin's theory of natural selection with modern genetics--does not disprove theism in an absolute sense, but it certainly fails to confirm it. Life has been intensely studied from a Darwinian perspective for over 150 years, and not one shred of scientifically credible evidence has emerged that is inconsistent with the theory or that would suggest theistic intervention. And we are talking about millions of experimental results, millions of observations--millions of bits of information. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Debunking Plantinga: A Review of Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.