Alvin Plantinga's Argument Against Naturalism

This assignment invites you to reflect on the question as to why we value science (the third of our lead questions).

As we have discussed in class on multiple occassion, the philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that we value science because we are seeking the truth. Truth as an epistemic vlaue has been on radar throughout the course. Plantinga's argument invites you reflect on truth as an epistemic value insofar as it is a religious value, i.e., a value on ground of religious considerations (as defined in the lecture of week 9).

As we have discussed in class multiple times, Plantinga's argument runs something like this:

We believe Darwinism to be a true theory.

If we believe that this is the case, then we are committed to the view that our minds work well enought to come up with true theories, such as Darwinism,

But if Darwinism is true, then we are committed to believe that our minds cannot produce true theories. If Darwinism is true in what it says about the evolution of our minds, then it cannot be true that Darwinism is true!

However, what can certainly explain why our minds can come up with true theories is Christian theology. Christianity says that humans were created by a God, who loves the truth and is the truth. We value science because we value truth and we value truth because God created our minds with a love for truth. What drives that love for truth is a desire to re-gain the knowledge that was lost, according to the Myth of Paradise Lost (MoPL), as discussed in class on multiple occassions (last time in the lecture of week 9). MoPL states that humanity was in paradise once, but since the first humans sinned against God, they were expelled from paradise. In consequence, they lost all the knowledge they originally had, and their minds were corrupted to some extent.

I am assigning the following two texts:

“Aimless science” by Darrell P. Rowbottom, published in the journal “Synthese”, vol. 191 (2014): 1211-1221: Rowbottom_2014_Aimless Science.pdf Download Rowbottom_2014_Aimless Science.pdf

Chapter 10 of the book “Science and Religion: Where the Conflict really lies” by Alvin Plantinga. The title of the chapter is: “The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism”: Plantinga_2011_Chapter 10_Evolutionary Argument_Where the Conflict really lies.pdf Download Plantinga_2011_Chapter 10_Evolutionary Argument_Where the Conflict really lies.pdf

This is what I like you to do:

First, read both texts, read them carefully.

Then, answer for yourself the following questions:

1. Why is Plantinga committed to the view that science has an overarching aim and that this aim is truth?

2. In what sense is truth a religious value, according to Christianity (pertaining to God's nature, his creation of humanity, and MoPL)?

3. What reasons does Rowbottom offer to throw into doubt the assumption that science has an overarching aim?

4. Does MoPL strenghten or weakend Plantinga's argument in light of Rowbottom's considerations? Explain your answer.

Then start working on your essay, and I expect you to structure your essay in the following way:

Introduction (1 sentence): what you are going to do in the essay ("In this essay I am going to compare....", or: "This essay addressess the question in what sense truth in an epistemic value on religious grounds...", etc.)

Main body of essay: Your answer of these questions as a flowing text that culminates in the answer to the fourth question (don't just list the answers to the questions such that the questions remain totally unrelated to one another!):

1. Why is Plantinga committed to the view that science has an overarching aim and that this aim is truth?



2. In what sense is truth a religious value, according to Christianity (pertaining to God's nature, his creation of humanity, and MoPL)?

3. What reasons does Rowbottom offer to throw into doubt the assumption that science has an overarching aim?

4. Does MoPL strenghten or weakend Plantinga's argument in light of Rowbottom's considerations? Explain your answer.

Conclusion (1 sentence): What you did in the essay.

The comparative essay assignment is of an “argumentative” assignment type. This assignment is intended to give you the opportunity of demonstrating your understanding of two philosophical texts and your ability to apply your knowledge of their contents and what you have learned in this course on an important issue in the context of ongoing science and value debates. The assignment is not meant to encourage you to conduct research and develop original arguments.

Rubric:

Introduction (1 sentence): what your essay is about (up to 2 points).

1. What is Plantinga's argument against naturalism and why is Plantinga thereby committed to the view that science has an overarching aim and that this aim is truth? (15 points, up to 10 points for the statement of Plantinga's argument; up to 5 points for your answer to the overarching aim part of the question) [No “in-text” citations. You must use your own words]

2. In what sense is truth a religious value, according to Christianity (pertaining to God's nature, his creation of humanity, and MoPL) and the definition of religion that was introduced in the lecture of week 9? (6 points) [No “in-text” citations. You must use your own words]

3. What reasons does Rowbottom offer to throw into doubt the assumption that science has an overarching aim? (up to 10 points, not more than 5 points for one reason) [No “in-text” citations. You must use your own words]

4. Does MoPL strenghten or weakend Plantinga's argument in light of Rowbottom's considerations? Explain your answer. (up to 5 points) [No “in-text” citations. You must use your own words]

Conclusion (1 sentence): What you did in the essay (up to 2 points).

Penalties: going over word limit by more than 50 words: -2 points. Grammar, form: up to -3 points.