Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Plantinga
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

A De Jure Criticism of Theism

100%
Goodnick L.
Open Theology
|
2016
|
vol. 2
|
issue 1
EN
An evolutionary by-product explanation entails that religious belief is an unintended consequence of a cognitive process selected for by evolution. In this paper, I argue that if a by-product explanation is true, then religious belief is unwarranted (even if God exists). In particular, I argue that if the cause of religious belief is the god-faculty (HADD + ToM + eToM + MCI), then it is likely unreliable; thus, religious belief is unwarranted. Plantinga argues that de jure criticisms are not independent of de facto criticisms: without knowing whether or not God exists, one can’t say that belief in God is unwarranted, since if God exists, it is possible that God has planned that this mechanism would lead to belief in Him. Against Plantinga, I show that in order for de jure criticisms to have force, it is not necessary to know that God does not exist. Instead, one only needs to doubt His existence. And if by-product explanations turn out to be supported by the evidence, this fact alone gives us reason to doubt God’s existence. Thus, if the by-product explanation is true, belief in God is not warranted; if we know this, then we have reason to doubt theism.
2
Content available remote

Modalne argumenty teistyczne

88%
Oppy G., Łukasik A.
Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne
|
2011
|
issue 14
5-14
EN
The aim of Oppy’s paper is to provide a general ground for rejecting all kinds of modal theistic arguments. The author claims that all such arguments are question begging – before proving the existence of God (defined as a being which exists in every possible world) theistic modalist must assume it when choosing his account of logical space (no matter which modal theory it relies on: Lewis’ modal realism, ersatz modal realism, combinatorialism or fictionalism). Two concrete arguments, Plantinga’s ontological argument and Leftow’s cosmological argument, are examples given by Oppy – both have premises which justification must refer to a non-modal question “Does God actually exist?”, concerning the nature of logical space. Oppy rejects suggestion that problems with modal theistic arguments show that there is simply something wrong with our standard modal analyses in terms of possible worlds. According to Oppy, problems with higher-level judgments about the nature of logical space are problems with propositional attitudes, not with modality, and they need an analysis distinct from the analysis of ground-level modal judgments.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Modalne argumenty teistyczne

88%
Oppy G., Łukasik A.
Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne
|
2011
|
issue 14
5 - 14
EN
The aim of Oppy’s paper is to provide a general ground for rejecting all kinds of modal theistic arguments. The author claims that all such arguments are question begging – before proving the existence of God (defined as a being which exists in every possible world) theistic modalist must assume it when choosing his account of logical space (no matter which modal theory it relies on: Lewis’ modal realism, ersatz modal realism, combinatorialism or fictionalism). Two concrete arguments, Plantinga’s ontological argument and Leftow’s cosmological argument, are examples given by Oppy – both have premises which justification must refer to a non-modal question “Does God actually exist?”, concerning the nature of logical space. Oppy rejects suggestion that problems with modal theistic arguments show that there is simply something wrong with our standard modal analyses in terms of possible worlds. According to Oppy, problems with higher-level judgments about the nature of logical space are problems with propositional attitudes, not with modality, and they need an analysis distinct from the analysis of ground-level modal judgments.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Providence, Chance, Divine Causation, and Molinism: A Reply to Łukasiewicz

87%
Flint T. P.
Roczniki Filozoficzne
|
2020
|
vol. 68
|
issue 3
55-69
EN
Dariusz Łukasiewicz’s “Divine Providence and Chance in the World” attempts to show that the strong traditional understanding of providence is no longer tenable, especially for one who adopts the current scientific picture of the world. In its place, Łukasiewicz suggests, we need to adopt a view of providence which allows for genuine chance events not controlled by God. I argue that he has not made his case on the need for the traditional view to be abandoned. I then examine two directions a Christian might go so as to accommodate most of the attractive elements of Łukasiewicz’s revisionary account without succumbing to the philosophical and theological defects his position exhibits.
PL
Opatrzność, przypadek, boska przyczynowość i molinizm: odpowiedź Łukasiewiczowi Esej Dariusza Łukasiewicz Opatrzność Boga a przypadek w świecie ma dowodzić, że silne tradycyjne rozumienie opatrzności nie da się utrzymać, zwłaszcza w świetle współczesnego naukowego obrazu świata. W jego miejsce Łukasiewicz proponuje koncepcję Opatrzności, która dopuszcza autentycznie przypadkowe zdarzenia, których Bóg nie kontroluje. Argumentuję, że argument Łukasiewicza jest nieudany. Następnie rozważam dwa sposoby, w jakie chrześcijanin mógłby uwzględnić większość atrakcyjnych składników rewizyjnej koncepcji Łukasiewicza, unikając filozoficznych i teologicznych wad jego stanowiska.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.