Philosophia 41 (1):221-238 (2013)

Brian Leahy
Harvard University
Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism aims to show that the conjunction of contemporary evolutionary theory (E) with the claim that there is no God (N) cannot be rationally accepted. Where R is the claim that our cognitive faculties are reliable, the argument is: The probability of R given N and E is low or inscrutable.Anyone who sees (1) and accepts (N&E) has a defeater for R, and this defeater cannot be defeated or deflected.Anyone who has an undefeated, undeflected defeater for R has an undefeated, undeflected defeater for everything she believes.Therefore she has an undefeated, undeflected defeater for (N&E).Plantinga (2011) defends the second premise. It examines and rejects several candidate defeater defeaters and defeater deflectors. One candidate is Millikan’s teleosemantics. I show that Plantinga’s motives for rejecting teleosemantics as a defeater deflector are inadequate. I then show that teleosemantics is not on its own an adequate defeater deflector. Then I offer an additional premise that constitutes a defeater deflector in conjunction with teleosemantics
Keywords Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)  Plantinga  Teleosemantics  Millikan  Productivity
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11406-012-9374-5
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 61,089
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Warrant and Proper Function.Alvin Plantinga - 1993 - Oxford University Press.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
97 ( #108,135 of 2,440,009 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #432,124 of 2,440,009 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes