Sophia 59 (3):489-499 (2020)
AbstractAlvin Plantinga has famously argued that the naturalist who accepts evolutionary theory has a defeater for all of her beliefs, including her belief in naturalism and evolution. Hence, he says, naturalism, when conjoined with evolution, is self defeating and cannot be rationally accepted. This is known as the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN). However, Tyler Wunder (Religious Studies 51:391– 399, 2015) has recently shown that if the EAAN is framed in terms of objective probability and theism is assumed to be non-contingent, then either theism is necessarily false or the EAAN is unsound. Neither option is attractive to the proponent of the EAAN. Perry Hendricks (Religious Studies 1–5, 2018) has responded to Wunder’s criticism, showing that the EAAN can be salvaged and, indeed, strengthened, by framing it in terms not of naturalism (N), but of a proposition that is entailed by N that is also consistent with theism. We will show that once Hendricks’ solution to Wunder’s objection is accepted, a puzzle ensues: if the EAAN provides the naturalist with a defeater for all of her beliefs, then an extension of it appears to provide God with a defeater for all of his beliefs. After bringing out this puzzle, we suggest several ways in which the proponent of the EAAN might solve it, but also show some potential weaknesses in these purported solutions. Whether the solutions to the puzzle that we consider ultimately succeed is unclear to us. (Translation: the authors disagree. One author thinks that the solutions (or,at least, some of them) that we consider do solve the puzzle while the other author does not.) However, it is clear to us that this is an issue that proponents of the EAAN need to address.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism.Alvin Plantinga - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
Epistemic Circularity.William P. Alston - 1986 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (1):1-30.
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Response to Wunder: Objective Probability, Non-Contingent Theism, and the EAAN.Perry Hendricks - 2018 - Religious Studies:1-5.
Does Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism Work?Wang-yen Lee - 2009 - Religious Studies 45 (1):73.
Debunking Morality: Lessons From the EAAN Literature.Andrew Moon - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (S1):208-226.
The Troublesome Explanandum in Plantinga’s Argument Against Naturalism.Yingjin Xu - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (1):1-15.
Plantinga's Innocent Assumption: Self-Defeating Naturalism, and Churchland's Response.Matt DeStefano - 2006 - Res Cogitans 3 (1):26-33.
A User’s Guide to the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.Omar Mirza - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 141 (2):125 - 146.
Proposta de Argumento Contra o Naturalismo Metafísico.Domingos Faria - 2014 - Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 18 (3):361.
What’s Wrong with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism?Geoff Childers - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (3):193-204.
A New Reliability Defeater for Evolutionary Naturalism.William J. Talbott - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 (3):538-564.
Plantinga Untouched: A Response to Beilby on the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.Michael Thune - 2005 - Philosophia Christi 7 (1):157-168.
REVIEW of Beilby, James, Ed., Naturalism Defeated? For Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2002). [REVIEW]John Post - unknown
Response to Stephen Law on the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.Calum Miller - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (1):147-152.