Abduction, Imagination, and Science

In this essay, I argue that developments in Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism—specifically, Thomas Crisp’s argument against a naturalistic metaphysics—have likely undermined the project of science for naturalists who are scientific realists. Scientific theorizing requires the use of abductive reasoning. A central component of abductive reasoning is the use of one’s imagination. However, Crisp’s argument provides us reason to doubt the trustworthiness of our cognitive faculties as it relates to the imaginative abilities necessary for complex abductive reasoning.

Response to Wunder: objective probability, non-contingent theism, and the EAAN

This article is a response to Tyler Wunder's ‘The modality of theism and probabilistic natural theology: a tension in Alvin Plantinga's philosophy’ (this journal). In his article, Wunder argues that if the proponent of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) holds theism to be non-contingent and frames the argument in terms of objective probability, then the EAAN is either unsound or theism is necessarily false. I argue that a modest revision of the EAAN renders Wunder's objection irrelevant, and that this revision actually widens the scope of the argument.

¿Se puede naturalizar la epistemología? Reflexiones al hilode la lectura del libro «La Evolución del Conocimiento» de Antonio Diéguez Lucena

Resumen: El objetivo de este artículo es discutir la propuesta de naturalización de la epis­temología que se presenta en el libro «La Evolución del Conocimiento» de Antonio Diéguez Lucena. La conclusión a la que se llega es que el planteamiento de este autor no consigue superar el argumento antinaturalista basado en la evolución (EAAN) de Alvin Plantinga. Y se argumenta que posiblemente ningún intento de naturalización de la epis­temología puede ser capaz de superar este argumento. Por lo que es probable que el enfoque naturalista de la epistemología conduzca a una vía muerta.Palabraza clave: Abstract: The aim of this paper is to discuss the naturalization of epistemology presented in the book «La Evolución del Conocimiento» by Antonio Diéguez Lucena. The conclu­sion reached is that the approach of this author can not overcome the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) of Alvin Plantinga. Moreover, it will be argued that possibly no attempt to naturalize epistemology may be able to overcome this argument. So it is likely that the naturalistic approach to epistemology leads to a dead end.Key words: Recibido: 23/10/2011. Aprobado: 17/01/2012

The modality of theism and probabilistic natural theology: a tension in Alvin Plantinga's philosophy

In Wunder (2013) I observed a probabilistic blunder in Plantinga (2011) and argued that correcting it, while noting Plantinga's acceptance of logically non-contingent theism, had negative consequences for many other of his probabilistic claims. Professor Plantinga kindly replied to my correspondence, but the fruits of that conversation could not be incorporated into Wunder (2013). This article will explain the blunder and summarize my earlier arguments before addressing Plantinga's main replies. I conclude that these replies fail to circumvent most of the problems observed earlier: perhaps most significantly, the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism and theism's logical non-contingency still appear jointly to imply theism's necessary falsehood.