Philo 9 (1):5-11 (2006)
AbstractIn my “Plantinga Untouched,” I argued that James Beilby’s recent objection to Plantinga’s EAAN was unsuccessful. Beilby has sincereplied that a naturalist can grant the Inscrutability Thesis and yet be alethically rational in hoping for a high P(R/N and future developments of E) and, therefore, needn’t accept the alethic defeater for R. I argue that this is impossible, since a naturalist cannot consistently grant that thesis and meet Beilby’s own criteria for alethic hope. Consequently, Plantinga is (still) right in maintaining that the naturalist who grants that P(R/N&E) is low or inscrutable has a defeater for R
Similar books and articles
Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.James Beilby (ed.) - 2002 - Cornell University Press.
REVIEW of Beilby, James, Ed., Naturalism Defeated? For Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2002). [REVIEW]John Post - unknown
Naturalism and Self-Defeat: Plantinga's Version.N. M. L. Nathan - 1997 - Religious Studies 33 (2):135-142.
The Troublesome Explanandum in Plantinga’s Argument Against Naturalism.Yingjin Xu - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (1):1-15.
A User’s Guide to the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.Omar Mirza - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 141 (2):125 - 146.
Pluralism × 3: Truth, Logic, Metaphysics.Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (S2):259-277.
Natural Theology and Naturalist Atheology: Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.Ernest Sosa - 2007 - In Deane-Peter Baker (ed.), Alvin Plantinga. Cambridge University Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads