Augustinian Science: Alvin Plantinga’s Idea on Philosophizing and Scientific Theorizing Based on Religious Belief
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dissertation, Mofid University (2011)
Alvin Plantinga believes there are some kinds of conflicts between some deliverances of science and religious beliefs. To correct, on the one hand, misinterpretations of the Scripture and, on the other hand, wrong scientific claims, he proposes, we must use in science all of what we know: what we find through experience, as well as what we know by way of faith. Methodological naturalism, one of methodological assumptions of scientific practice, prevents us to achieve this goal. According to methodological naturalism, scientists can’t use supernatural explanation, evidence and concept in science. In addition to rejecting methodological naturalism, Plantinga maintains many theories in humanities apply normative concepts and definitions; and religion can be used as a source for this concepts and definitions. In summary, Plantinga’s idea, Augustinian Science, has been based on four principles: using hermeneutical finding along with empirical evidence in science; rejecting methodological naturalism; using normative concepts and definitions which comes from religious world view, in theories which need them; assuming properly basic beliefs of believers. First chapter of this thesis is a brief introduction to the subject of relation between science and religion in addition with some remarks on the old and the new creationist movements. In second chapter, Plantinga’s idea has been reported in details and, then, in the third chapter, an analysis and evaluation of it has been presented. I viewed Augustinian Science from three different aspect (epistemology, religion and science) in which I considered three distinctive features for every aspect (possibility, necessity and realization). I concluded Augustinian Science has some implications and weaknesses which cannot be removed even by assuming reformed epistemology.
|Keywords||Augustinian Science methodological naturalism Christian Philosophy religion-based science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
S. Muhammad-Taqīy Mudarrisī (2011). Methodology of Augustinian Science. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities (69):7-39.
Richard Jonathan Sagar, The Cognitive Science of Religion/Atheism and its Impact on Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology.
Piotr Bylica & Dariusz Sagan (2008). God, Design, and Naturalism: Implications of Methodological Naturalism in Science for Science–Religion Relation. Pensamiento 64 (242):621-38.
Alvin Plantinga (1997). Methodological Naturalism. Origins and Design 18 (1):18-27.
Alvin Plantinga (1997). Methodological Naturalism, Part 2. Origins and Design 18 (2):22-34.
Del Ratzsch (2004). Stenmark, Plantinga, and Scientific Neutrality. Faith and Philosophy 21 (3):353-364.
Michael Ruse (2005). Methodological Naturalism Under Attack. South African Journal of Philosophy 24 (1):44-60.
Alvin Plantinga (1996). Science: Augustinian or Duhemian. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3):368-394.
Reed Richter (2002). What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
Andrew Porter (2003). Naturalism, Naturalism by Other Means, and ÂAlternatives to Naturalism. Theology and Science 1 (2):221-237.
Alvin Plantinga (1996). Methodological Naturalism. In Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science, Volume I: Historiography and Modes of Interaction.
Geoff Childers (2011). What's Wrong with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (3):193-204.
Alvin Plantinga (2010). Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Oxford University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-07-30
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?