(In all seriousness, the fact that some of these irresponsible critics are philosophers is disturbing.) Even Plantinga's formulation of his thesis is slightly misleading, since it suggests that he will defend four existential statements when in fact his first and third sub-theses are universal statements. I mention this mistake as a service to all those critics of the book who appear to have read little more than the book jacket. Unfortunately, on the book jacket the last three words are changed from "science and naturalism" to "naturalism and religion," which makes the sub-thesis of deep conflict appear rather easy to defend. "There is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, in particular theistic religion, and superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism." Alvin Plantinga repeats this formulation of his thesis several times in the book.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |