The troublesome explanandum in Plantinga’s argument against naturalism

Intending to have a constructive dialogue with the combination of evolutionary theory (E) and metaphysical naturalism (N), Alvin Plantinga’s “evolutionary argument against naturalism” (EAAN) takes the reliability of human cognition (in normal environments) as a purported explanandum and E&N as a...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Xu, Yingjin (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2011
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2011, Volume: 69, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-15
Further subjects:B Testimony
B Probability
B Cognition
B Naturalism
B Reliability
B evolutionary theory
B Plantinga
B Explanandum
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1821425073
003 DE-627
005 20221110052752.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221110s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s11153-010-9228-7  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1821425073 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1821425073 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Xu, Yingjin  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
109 |a Xu, Yingjin  |a Xu Ying Jin  |a Xu Yingjin 
245 1 4 |a The troublesome explanandum in Plantinga’s argument against naturalism 
264 1 |c 2011 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Intending to have a constructive dialogue with the combination of evolutionary theory (E) and metaphysical naturalism (N), Alvin Plantinga’s “evolutionary argument against naturalism” (EAAN) takes the reliability of human cognition (in normal environments) as a purported explanandum and E&N as a purported explanans. Then, he considers whether E&N can offer a good explanans for this explanandum, and his answer is negative (an answer employed by him to produce a defeater for N). But I will argue that the whole EAAN goes wrong by assuming that R is a qualified explanandum crying out for scientific explanations, since it cannot meet either of the two criteria for any scientifically qualified explanandum: Realizability Criterion and Informativeness Criterion. Hence, EAAN is simply setting a task that E&N, as a scientific theory, will not care at all. Therefore, EAAN cannot substantially shake E&N. 
601 |a Argumentation 
650 4 |a evolutionary theory 
650 4 |a Probability 
650 4 |a Naturalism 
650 4 |a Testimony 
650 4 |a Cognition 
650 4 |a Reliability 
650 4 |a Explanandum 
650 4 |a Plantinga 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t International journal for philosophy of religion  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1970  |g 69(2011), 1, Seite 1-15  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320442098  |w (DE-600)2005049-5  |w (DE-576)103746927  |x 1572-8684  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:69  |g year:2011  |g number:1  |g pages:1-15 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474765  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-010-9228-7  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 69  |j 2011  |e 1  |h 1-15 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 420822908X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1821425073 
LOK |0 005 20221110052752 
LOK |0 008 221110||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-09-28#5B3378ABE9B34DE9BDC462779F5965F6CFCC5F38 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474765 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL