Theology and Probability(A Case Study and Conditional Defense)

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate professor in philosophy and Islamic theology, University of Isfahan,

Abstract

This article includes an interaction between Theology and Probability. One of the most significant criticisms of Atheistic Naturalism is the Bayesian theorem which argues through probabilities. This argument includes two main ideas: First, the probability of reliability of cognitive faculties 1 (P(R)=1). Second, the reliability of these faculties in a combination of naturalism and evolution (P(R/N&E)) is low or inscrutable. The advocates of Atheistic Naturalism have criticized this argument: 1. The low P(R/N&E) is not a reason to reject R. 2. If defeating of R by evolutionary Naturalism means abandoning the beliefs to anything including evolutionary Naturalism itself, we have a conclusion beyond defeating the R. 3. The existence of sufficient and independent evidence for R, eliminates self-defeating of N&E. To defend this argument against the criticisms, there are some points and additions: 1. The probability value of P(R/N&E) is not merely low but is low or inscrutable. 2. There are some misunderstandings about defeating of R. 3. There isn't sufficient evidence for R, because it's a cognitive agent. The purpose of the paper is to defend the Bayesian theorem against the critiques of evolutionary naturalism in an analytical, complementary, and critical approach.
 

Keywords

References

 
[1] Churchland, P., (1987), “Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience”, Journal of Philosophy 84, pp. 544–53.
[2] Dawkins, Richard, (2006), The God Delusion, Bantam Press, London.
[3] Dennett, Daniel and Plantinga, Alvin, (2010), Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Oxford University Press.
[4] Fitelson, B. & Sober, E., (1988), “Plantinga's Probability Argument Against Evolutionary Naturalism”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, pp. 115-129.
[5] Fodor, J. (1997), “Is Science Biologically Possible?”, unpublished manuscript of the 1998 Benjamin Lecture at the University of Missouri.
[6] Maher, P. (1993), Betting on Theories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Novotný, D., D. (2007), How to Save Naturalism from planting? Organon F, No. 14, 1, pp. 32-48.
[8] Otte. R. (2002), “Conditional Probabilities in Plantiga’s Argument”, in Naturalism Defeated, ed. James Beilby, New York: Cornel University Press. pp. 135-149.
[9] Plantinga, A., (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies, Oxford University Press, Inc, New York.
[10] Plantinga, A., (2009), “How Naturalism Implies Skepticism”, Readings in Philosophy of Religion, (2009). Zagzebski, Linda (ed), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, United Kingdom.
[11] Plantinga, A., (2008), Knowledge of God (with Michael Tooley), Oxford: Blackwell.
[12] Plantinga, A., (2003), “Probability and Defeaters”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84, pp. 291-298.
[13] Plantinga, A., (2002), “The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism: An Initial Statement of the Argument”, Naturalism Defeated? Beilby, James (ed), Cornell University Press, United State of America, pp. 1-12.
[14] Plantinga, A., (2000), Warranted Christian Belief, New York: Oxford University Press.
[15] Plantinga, A., (1993), Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford University Press, Inc. United State of America.
Philosophy and Kalam
Volume 54, Issue 2
February 2022
Pages 406-389

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics