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 .
|Published (Last):||1 May 2011|
|PDF File Size:||15.86 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.5 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Each section follows the previous one in an orderly progression, logically sequencing Plantinga’s arguments.
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. A set of beautifully constructed epistemic and good’ol philosophical arguments to defy the popular thesis toward which I did lean to at some point that science and religion contradict each other.
Science, Religion, and Naturalism Alvin Plantinga Abstract This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, on one of our biggest debates—the compatibility of science and religion.
If you’ve read some of Plantinga’s other books, this read isn’t too hard. It is often alleged that this belief conflicts with contemporary science, that a proper respect for the success of modern science implies a “hands-off theology. This book is well worth the effort to work through Plantinga’s careful reasoning about these things confflict gives the lie to the popular stereotypes that place science and faith at war rather than in concord.
So many, in fact, that I had to stop reading them so that I could understand the points the author tries to make. The book examines where this conflict is wehre 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.
He too often draws on pseudo-math that neither helps his arguments nor the book’s readability. Aug 11, Rick Mattson rated it really liked it. You may have heard that there is a conflict between science and religion. Authors Affiliations are at time of tne publication.
Dec 11, Jonathan rated it really liked it. This view presumes a universe that is a closed system: In the second part of the book Chapters 5 and 6Plantinga turns his attention to genuine conflict.
Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. There is a segment in one of the episodes where the work of Monsignor George Lemaitre is discussed.
And this brings us to the last section where he shows that the contention that evolutionary naturalism is in fact self-defeating, in that it undercuts the basic idea that we can trust our rational processes by showing cofnlict a mere artifact of evolutionary processes–unreliable at best for anything other than survival. One of Plantinga’s goals in writing this book was to make it accessible to a broader audience than just specialists in philosophy. In the second part of the book Plantinga looks at two areas where there appears to be a superficial conflict: Search my Subject Specializations: He was an avid proponent of the theory of an expanding universe and argued long and hard with such luminaries as Einstein against the steady state coflict.
In terms of style this book plantina rate very high. Two arguments for concord that Plantinga might have considered here yhe the ones I mentioned earlier, that there is concord between Darwinian evolution and naturalism both because naturalism gives us more reason than theism does to expect Darwinism to be true and because Darwinian evolution helps naturalism account for the facts of evil.
At each step, the author makes clear where he is in his progression through the regular use of these summaries.
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism – Oxford Scholarship
In Part 1 he first discusses evolution and clearly shows that the idea of unguided evolution is not scientific: Dawkins and Dennett are both beguilingly good writers.
Unless “not material” entails “like God,” this definition implies les a naturalist can consistently deny materialism about human persons. Open Preview See a Problem? There’s much much more than I could say in a review, if you are a Christian, and you like science and philosophy, then it is a must read.
Kepler, Newton, Einstein, and many, many others plqntinga no issue being theists of one brand or another and still have the drive to know all they could know about the universe in which we live.
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. I should add that the writing and argumentation are very clear throughout, and the book is, in my opinion, unusually fun to read. The logical consistency displayed throughout the book is truly exceptional, Dr.
His defense of this claim is divided into two parts, corresponding to the first two parts of the book, which he calls “Alleged Conflict” that is, alleged conflicts that are not genuine and “Superficial Conflict” that is, alleged conflicts that are genuine but only superficial.
The book is based on a series of Gifford Lectures that Plantinga delivered in It is certainly beyond the scope of this review to endeavor to explain the cosmological argument fully, but, in a nutshell, it is the perception that all things are preceded by a cause so there must be an original cause.
Plantigna 02, Victoria Adams rated it it was amazing.
Six of the book’s ten chapters are devoted to the first sub-thesis, which, reworded one more time, says that no alleged conflicts between science and theistic religion are both genuine and substantial. You may have heard of Ptolemy. The conflict is about an ‘add-on’ to that theory about which no New Atheist ever gave a plausible argument.
This book could be significantly improved in the second confkict by sticking to defense in the chapters supposedly but not really set aside for defense. So, the contention that matter could somehow randomly produce an entire thinking intelligent being is simply untenable. Also, Ths skepticism about how frequently and in what ways God might want to act directly in the world, combined with the fact that very few details about the evolutionary histories of organisms and their parts are known, seems to commit him to skepticism about Darwinism.
Thanks for telling us about the problem. This book plantinya a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, on one of our biggest debates—the compatibility of science and religion.
Suppose human beings, as the vast bulk of the Christian tradition donflict supposed, resembled God in being immaterial souls or selves, immaterial substances–with this difference: Here’s a list of the biggest problems I had with this book: I won’t say how this argument plays out pantinga I think it respresents a challenging notion to thoughtful atheists such as Thomas Nagel, whose review of the book appeared in the New York Review of Books, Sept 27,