DOCSLIB.ORG

Modernity, Science, and the Making of Religion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modernity, Science, and the Making of Religion Modernity, Science, and the Making of Religion: A Critical Analysis of a Modern Dichotomy by Rodney W. Tussing A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Approved November 2014 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Linell Cady, Chair Joel Gereboff Owen Anderson ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2014 ABSTRACT This project examines and challenges the West’s generally accepted two category approach to the world’s belief systems. That is, it will deconstruct the religion / science ‘paradigm’ that has developed over the past two centuries. It will argue that the dichotomy between the two categories was created by modernity for the purpose of establishing an exclusive view believed to be based on knowledge. This exclusive view, philosophical naturalism (science), was set in opposition to all alternative views identified as religion. As the exclusive view, though constructed on a defective foundation of knowledge, philosophical naturalism, nonetheless, became the privileged interpreter and explainer of reality in the academy of the Western world. As a work in the area of epistemology and the philosophy of religion, this project will challenge philosophical naturalism’s claim to knowledge. The approach will be philosophical and historical critically assessing both modernity’s and postmodernity’s basis for knowledge. Without a rational basis for exclusive knowledge the popular dichotomy dissolves. The implications of this dissolution for ‘religious studies’ will be addressed by offering an alternative scheme that provides a more plausible way to divide the world’s belief systems. i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….....1 2 SCIENCE AND RELIGION – THE POPULAR PARAGIGM……...27 Two Categories of Belief……………………………………….…..27 Category Tension……………………………………………….…..30 The Idea of Religion…………………………………………….….38 Explanation, Presuppositions, and Privilege……………………….49 Worldview Studies………………………………………………....57 Summary…………………………………………………………...60 3 PHILOSOPHICAL PRECURSORS TO MODERNITY’S MAKING OF RELIGION…………………………………………..64 From Pre-Modern to Modern……………………………………...65 Epistemological Foundationalism…………………………………67 The Rise of Modernity…………………………………………….73 John Locke and Evidentialism…………………………………….77 Toward the Natural………………………………………………..80 No Access to the Transcendent………………………………...…84 An Alternative Theism…………………………………………....88 Summary……………………………………………………….....94 4 THE MODERN DECLINE OF CHRISTIAN THEISM AND THE RISE OF NATURALISM……………………………...96 The Maturation of Naturalism…………………………………....97 Christian Theism’s Response to Naturalism…………………….114 ii CHAPTER Page A Common Sense Response…………………………………….118 Summary………………………………………………………...128 5 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A MODERN DICHOTOMY…....134 Deconstructing Modernity’s Foundational Epistemology………136 The Rise of Coherentist Epistemology……………………….…145 Knowledge and Justification……………………………………154 Summary……………………………………………………......163 6 CONCLUSION AND PROJECT SUMMARY…………….….…170 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………….....178 iii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION That there is such a thing as ‘religion’ in the world few would deny. Everyone today, at least in the West, seems to know what religion is and, just as important, everyone seems to know what religion is not. A familiar account is that religion can be best explained as a certain set of beliefs, rules, and practices for living. It is thought to be belief in a transce1ndent reality, one that is not part of this material world, one that is holy, or sacred, and makes certain things in this world holy or sacred. It consists of performing particular rituals at particular times, and, of course, it is often belief in a higher power, a God or gods. Additionally, it is thought to be a set of beliefs that explain and interpret life and, by implication, the nature of ultimate reality. To believe in this type of transcendent reality and to perform the prescribed behaviors or rituals is to be religious, so the typical account goes. We in the West use the term, religion, freely and assume everyone knows what we are talking about. We refer to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, for example, as religions and the adherents of these as those who are religious. There are the faithful, those who follow their religion more or less consciously and consistently, there are those who are somewhat religious, and, of course, there are those who have no religion at all. The common understanding seems to be that there is religion and non-religion, religious people and non-religious people, and there are religious views and there are non-religious views. At what can be called the ‘popular’ level, the term religion, as just summarized, appears to be clearly understood and can be differentiated using the descriptions listed above from what it is not, thus producing two separate categories—religion and non- 1 religion. Even without an explicit scholarly definition of religion these two categories are evident in virtually every area of life. For instance, an average bookstore will have numerous book sections including one on religion. Historians speak of religious histories and news analysts report on the latest happenings in the religious world. Critics, such as the group known as ‘the new atheists,’ express their disdain for religion and assert the need to abolish it favoring the idea of a world without religion—a totally secular world.1 Examples depicting religion as a distinct category are endless, thus establishing a type of belief paradigm—religion and non-religion—a particular way of looking at the world that has become a commonly accepted conceptual scheme. These two categories have been received by the modern Western mindset and often without much critical thought. It’s considered a given. After several years of teaching Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, and World Religions at the college level, this author has become convinced that the dichotomy between a religious perspective, or worldview,2 and a non-religious one is deeply-seated in 1 Philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga, identifies the “new atheists” as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris with an aim to “run roughshod over religion.” “[T]hey attribute most of the ills of the world to religion….religious belief is unreasonable and irrational,” Where the Conflict Really Lies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) x-xi. Victor Stenger would also include himself in this group and has addressed the relationship between contemporary atheism and religion in his work, The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason (New York: Prometheus Books, 2009). The naturalistic claims of the “new atheists” will be developed more in what follows. 2 The term ‘worldview’ as used in this project means a unified comprehensive system—a metanarrative—that attempts to present a coherent view of existence by explaining the meaning and purpose of the world and life in its totality. As human beings, we tend to subscribe to and place ourselves into a grand, or master, narrative. Christianity, as an example, is one of many. George Lindbeck and William Abraham come very close to the intended meaning. Lindbeck writes, “[R]eligions are seen as comprehensive interpretive schemes, usually embodied in myths or narratives and heavily ritualized, which structure human experience and understanding of self and world….a religion can be viewed as a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought.” The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1984) 32-3. Abraham writes, “Religious belief should be assessed as a rounded whole rather then taken in stark isolation. Christianity, for example, like other world faiths, is a complex, large-scale system of belief which must be seen as a whole before it is assessed. To break it up into disconnected parts is to mutilate and distort its character. We can, of course, distinguish certain elements in the Christian faith, but we must still stand back and see it as a complex interaction of these elements. We need to see it as a metaphysical system, as a world view, that is total in its scope and range.” An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985) 104. For a detailed exploration of the concept see David Naugle’s, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand 2 the Western consciousness and continues to be the putative position, which is not surprising since no strong challenge to it appears to be forthcoming.3 The religious and non-religious categories are often characterized and exemplified by the religion and science model. Many students enter the classroom presupposing the generally accepted divide between religion and science as popularly understood. They tend to insist that a ‘scientific view,’ prima facie, is a justifiable alternative to a religious view. In keeping with the popular understanding, students consistently present the scientific view as the non-religious view—the neutral, publicly held view. Religion, though notoriously difficult to define, is nonetheless believed to be a particular bias based on faith or belief, personal feelings, or family tradition, and is not grounded in knowledge and facts. Put simply, a religious view lacks evidence and proof, it is often said. Science, on the other hand, is about the pursuit of neutral brute facts obtained through the use of reason and the scientific method resulting in knowledge that can be publicly verified. The scientific view
Load more

Recommended publications
  • More Visible but Limited in Its Popularity Atheism (And Atheists) in Finland
    TEEMU TAIRA More visible but limited in its popularity Atheism (and atheists) in Finland his paper argues that atheism has become more atheism has become more visible in the public sphere, visible in Finland, but it is a relatively unpopular especi ally in the media. Some suggestions will be of­ Tidentity position. The relatively low popularity of fered as to why this is the case. This will be done by atheism is partly explained by the connection between using different kinds of data, both quantitative (sur­ Lutheranism and Finnishness. In public discourse athe- veys) and qualitative (mainly media outputs). ism has been historically connected to communism This paper proceeds as follows. First, surveys and the Soviet Union (and, therefore, anti-Finnishness). about Finnish religiosity and atheism will be exam­ However, atheism has slowly changed from being the ined in order to chart the modes and locations of other of Finnishness to one alternative identity among Finnish non­religiosity. This section is based on a many, although it has not become extremely popular. fairly detailed exploration of surveys, including an Recently, with the rise of the so-called ‘New Atheism’, examination of the popularity of religious beliefs, re­ atheism has become more visible in Finnish society and ligious behaviour, membership and identification in this development has led to a polarised debate between Finland. It demonstrates that atheism is relatively un­ defenders and critics of religion. Despite being a study popular in Finland, despite the low level of religious on locality, the aim is to develop a methodological ap- activity. In order to examine why this is the case, pub­ proach that can be applied to other contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • On Natural Causes: Implications for a Teleological View of the World
    ON NATURAL CAUSES Implications for a teleological view of the world Joseph D. Renick1 March 15, 2020 Methodological naturalism is a guiding principle imposed on scientific methodology that limits science to the consideration of natural causes alone where “natural causes” explicitly means “non- supernatural causes”. Its principle role is to protect the teaching of biological evolution in public schools from challenges to its veracity posed by evidence of design in nature where, under the scrutiny of methodological naturalism, all such evidence is labelled “religion, not science”. However, an objective consideration of the reasoning involved in scientific methodology leads to the conclusion that the meaning of “natural causes” should be based on what a natural cause is, not on what it is not. This observation surprisingly leads to the proposition that both law and design must be viewed as natural causes. Further, it is evident that law and design are unified in nature and if they are unified in nature, they must also be unified in the natural sciences. This leads to the proposition that if law and design are unified in the natural sciences, they must also be unified in science education in public schools. We conclude that methodological naturalism has a legitimate role in its oversight of the methods of science, but that oversight must be limited to the methods themselves, not the metaphysical implications that might arise as a result of those methods. Otherwise, methodological naturalism functions as metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a guiding principle imposed on scientific methodology that limits science to the consideration of natural causes alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Varieties of Religious Naturalism
    Varieties of Religious Naturalism Wesley J. Wildman — Boston University — Spring 2010 — STH TT861/TT961 Course Description The aim of this course is learn about varieties of religious naturalism and how they have been, and can be, incorporated into philosophical and theological reflection. The seminar will read a variety of works in contemporary religious naturalism, from twentieth-century classics to current contributions, and from theoretical analyses of the meaning of naturalism to surveys attempting to map out the territory of plausible viewpoints. We will also track the close relationship between religious naturalism and both ecologically-rooted forms of spirituality and nature-centered forms of mysticism. The class is intended for advanced masters students and doctoral candidates interested in contemporary forms of philosophical and theological reflection on nature and God, and in forms of spirituality rooted in the natural world. Students registered at the 900-level have readings and a bibliographic task to complete over and above the obligations of students registered at the 800-level. Classes will meet once a week on Wednesdays from 8:00 to 11:00 in STH 319. Each class will be conducted in the seminar discussion format with lectures given by the instructor as needed or requested. The 800-level version of this course counts (1) as an MTS Core Concentration course for Science and Religion, for Theology, and for Area B; and (2) as an MDiv Theology 3 Core Elective. It may also count (3) as a requirement for a BTI Certificate program in science and religion. The main product of the course will be a research paper on some aspect of the course material, topic to be approved in advance by the instructor (50%; 3,000 words for 800-level students, 5,000 words for 900-level students).
    [Show full text]
  • The Encounter Between Naturalistic Atheism and Christian Theism
    Michael Peterson The Encounter Between Naturalistic Atheism and Christian Theism Michael Peterson (b. 1950) sets the debate between atheism and theism in the larger context of a worldview conflict between naturalism, which entails atheism, and Christian belief, which entails theism. He tries to show that Christian theism has intellectual resources that can handle both arguments against theism and arguments for atheism. Then he compares the capacity of atheistic naturalism and Christian theism to generate credible explanations of many important features of reality, such as consciousness, mind, morality, and personhood. He concludes that such impressive phenomena are not likely to occur in a naturalistic universe and that naturalists provide explanations of them that are reductionistic and strained. However, in a universe described by Trinitarian Christian theism, which was cre­ ated by a supremely intelligent, moral, personal, and relational being, it is much more likely that finite consciousness, mind, morality, and personhood would arise. n academia and broader society, the intellectual of reality. An explanation of everything is a I conflict between theism and atheism continues. worldview-a comprehensive conceptual frame­ Theism is the belief that an omnipotent, omniscient, work that makes sense of important features of life and perfectly good personal spiritual being exists and the world. Both theists and atheists advance who is creator and sustainer of the universe; this key arguments and cite significant evidence for being is designated God. Positive atheism is the their positions. Thorough worldview assessment belief that God does not exist, i.e., the denial of must evaluate all of the arguments, pro and con, theism.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment Fundamentalism and Science
    SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies Journal of Science Communication ISSN 1824 – 2049 http://jcom.sissa.it/ Comment Fundamentalism and science Massimo Pigliucci The many facets of fundamentalism. There has been much talk about fundamentalism of late. While most people's thought on the topic go to the 9/11 attacks against the United States, or to the ongoing war in Iraq, fundamentalism is affecting science and its relationship to society in a way that may have dire long-term consequences. Of course, religious fundamentalism has always had a history of antagonism with science, and – before the birth of modern science – with philosophy, the age-old vehicle of the human attempt to exercise critical thinking and rationality to solve problems and pursue knowledge. “Fundamentalism” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Social Sciences 1 as “A movement that asserts the primacy of religious values in social and political life and calls for a return to a 'fundamental' or pure form of religion.” In its broadest sense, however, fundamentalism is a form of ideological intransigence which is not limited to religion, but includes political positions as well (for example, in the case of some extreme forms of “environmentalism”). In the United States, the main version of the modern conflict between science and religious fundamentalism is epitomized by the infamous Scopes trial that occurred in 1925 in Tennessee, when the teaching of evolution was challenged for the first time 2,3. That battle is still being fought, for example in Dover, Pennsylvania, where at the time of this writing a court of law is considering the legitimacy of teaching “intelligent design” (a form of creationism) in public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Outlines of Theology by A
    Monergism.com Outlines of Theology by A. A. Hodge Available in .pdf, ePub and Kindle .mobi formats Table of Contents Preface To First Edition Preface To Revised And Enlarged Edition 1. Christian Theology; Its Several Branches; And Their Relation To Other Departments Of Human Knowledge 2. The Origin Of The Idea Of God And Proof Of His Existence 3. The Sources Of Theology 4. The Inspiration Of The Bible 5. The Scriptures Of The Old And New Testaments The Only Rule Of Faith And Judge Of Controversies 6. A Comparison Of Systems 7. Creeds And Confessions 8. The Attributes Of God 9. The Holy Trinity, Including The Divinity Of Christ, The Eternal Generation Of The Son, The Personality, Divinity, And Eternal Procession Of The Holy Ghost, And The Several Properties And Mutual Relations Of The Persons Of The Godhead 10. The Decrees Of God In General 11. Predestination 12. The Creation Of The World 13. Angels 14. Providence 15. The Moral Constitution Of The Soul Will, Conscience, Liberty, Etc. 16. Creation And Original State Of Man 17. The Covenant Of Works 18. The Nature Of Sin And The Sin Of Adam 19. Original Sin-(Peccatum Habituale) 20. Inability 21. The Imputation Of Adam's S First Sin To His Posterity 22. The Covenant Of Grace 23. The Person Of Christ 24. The Meditatorial Office Of Christ 25. The Atonement:Its Nature, Necessity, Perfection, And Extent 26. The Intercession Of Christ 27. The Mediatorial Kingship Of Christ 28. Effectual Calling 29. Regeneration 30. Faith 31. Union Of Believers With Christ 32.
    [Show full text]
  • Life with Augustine
    Life with Augustine ...a course in his spirit and guidance for daily living By Edmond A. Maher ii Life with Augustine © 2002 Augustinian Press Australia Sydney, Australia. Acknowledgements: The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following people: ► the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel, Australia, for support- ing this project, with special mention of Pat Fahey osa, Kevin Burman osa, Pat Codd osa and Peter Jones osa ► Laurence Mooney osa for assistance in editing ► Michael Morahan osa for formatting this 2nd Edition ► John Coles, Peter Gagan, Dr. Frank McGrath fms (Brisbane CEO), Benet Fonck ofm, Peter Keogh sfo for sharing their vast experience in adult education ► John Rotelle osa, for granting us permission to use his English translation of Tarcisius van Bavel’s work Augustine (full bibliography within) and for his scholarly advice Megan Atkins for her formatting suggestions in the 1st Edition, that have carried over into this the 2nd ► those generous people who have completed the 1st Edition and suggested valuable improvements, especially Kath Neehouse and friends at Villanova College, Brisbane Foreword 1 Dear Participant Saint Augustine of Hippo is a figure in our history who has appealed to the curiosity and imagination of many generations. He is well known for being both sinner and saint, for being a bishop yet also a fellow pilgrim on the journey to God. One of the most popular and attractive persons across many centuries, his influence on the church has continued to our current day. He is also renowned for his influ- ence in philosophy and psychology and even (in an indirect way) art, music and architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Naturalism As an Educational Philosophy in Jordan from the Perspectives of Childhood Education Teachers
    Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.11, 2016 The Implications of Naturalism as an Educational Philosophy in Jordan from the Perspectives of Childhood Education Teachers Omar Khasawneh Ahmed Khaled Mohammad Al Momani Al Ain University of Science and Technology Al Ain, United Arab Emirates & Yarmouk University- Jordan Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify the educational implications of naturalism as an educational philosophy from the Jordanian childhood education teachers' perspectives. Each philosophy simply represents a unique conviction concerning the nature of the teaching/learning process. This study could serve as a grounded theory for Jordanian childhood teachers to comprehend the need for a clear educational philosophy within the Jordanian educational system. In addition, this research study would draw Jordanian childhood teachers' interest to be acquainted more with the educational principles of such philosophical theory. The researchers employed a questionnaire consisted of twenty one items, which correspond to the educational principles of naturalism. The quantitative approach is used to gather data as one of the techniques and descriptive due to its suitability for this study. The study findings revealed that Jordanian childhood education teachers' perspectives toward the implications of naturalism as an educational philosophy were positive for all domains; curriculum, aims, and activities. Based on the findings, the researchers provided some relevant recommendations. Keywords : Naturalism, Educational Philosophy, Childhood Education Teachers, Jordan. 1. Introduction Teachers’ educational philosophies and their value systems influence their teaching styles and the way they deal with their students. So, the impact of teachers’ beliefs and values on teaching and learning is evident in each classroom (Conti, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalistic Theism Teed Rockwell
    Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 25.2 (2017) 209–220 ISSN 1522-7340 (print) ISSN 2052-8388 (online) https://doi.org/10.1558/eph.34830 Naturalistic Theism Teed Rockwell Sonoma State University [email protected] Abstract Many modern theological debates are built around a false dichotomy between 1) an atheism which asserts that the universe was created by purposeless me- chanical processes and 2) acceptance of a religious system which requires both faith in the infallibility of sacred texts and belief in a supernatural God. I propose a form of naturalistic theism, which rejects sacred texts as unjustified, and supernaturalism as incoherent. I argue that rejecting these two elements of traditional organized religion would have a strongly positive impact on the beliefs and practices of religion, even though many religious people feel strongly attached to them. It is belief in sacred texts that is responsible for most of the evil done in the name of religion, not belief in God. Many of the strongest arguments for atheism work only against a supernatural God, and have no impact on the question of the existence of a natural God. Keywords atheism, theism, agnosticism, naturalism, supernaturalism, sacred text, Shook, Dennett, Dawkins, Kuhn, Quine, Neurath, Koran, Bible, Islam, Buddhism, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, miracles, Marxist atheism I agree with many of the criticisms of established religions voiced by promi- nent Atheists. That is why the only form of Theism I could accept would be what I call Naturalistic Theism. For many Atheists, this will appear to be a contradiction in terms, but I will argue that this kind of theism is as com- patible with science as nondogmatic Atheism.1 As far as I can tell, Natural- istic Theism is essentially identical to what John Shook calls either Religious 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Rational to Have Faith? Looking for New Evidence, Good’S Theorem, and Risk Aversion
    Lara Buchak, November 2009 DRAFT DO NOT CITE Is it rational to have faith? Looking for new evidence, Good’s Theorem, and Risk Aversion 0. Introduction Although statements involving ascriptions of faith are quite common, faith and rationality are often thought to conflict; at best, they are thought to have nothing to say to each other. In this paper, I analyze the concept of faith: in particular, I give an account that unifies statements of faith in mundane matters and statements of religious faith. My account focuses on spelling out the sense in which faith requires going beyond the evidence, and I argue that faith requires stopping ones search for further evidence. I then turn to the question of whether it is rational to have faith, taking into account both epistemic rationality and practical rationality. I argue that faith need not conflict with epistemic rationality at all; however, whether faith can be practically rational hinges on which attitudes towards risk it is rationally permissible to adopt when making decisions: more specifically, it hinges on how one should respond to the risk of misleading evidence. I have argued elsewhere that practical rationality permits a wider range of attitudes towards risk than is commonly supposed, and if this is right, then it is also rationally permissible to have faith; indeed, depending on the attitude towards risk that one decides to adopt, it is sometimes rationally required.1 1. Faith Statements I begin by sketching some characteristics that faith statements have in common. By faith statements, I simply mean statements involving the term faith.
    [Show full text]
  • The Naturalist Challenge to Religion
    Michael Ruse The Naturalist Challenge to Religion Michael Ruse (b. 1940) presents a comprehensive case for a naturalist worldview that embraces both methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Rather than seeing methodolog­ ical naturalism as worldview neutral, Ruse argues that it actually helps the case for metaphysical naturalism because it rules out forms of explanation that look for causes beyond the natural realm. So, Ruse's case for metaphysical naturalism is heavily influenced by how he sees the role of methodological naturalism. He cites methodological naturalism's ability to explain the origin and structure of organisms without appeal to divine design and even it~ ability to explain religion as a purely human phenomenon without assuming it relates to a divine realm. ((Naturalism'' is one of those words with many naturalism;' claiming that there is nothing beyond this meanings. When I was a teenager growing up natural world. No gods or such things. Today, many in England, it was a euphemism for "nudism:' With methodological naturalists are also metaphysical natu­ some regret, it is not this sense that is the subject of this ralists. This would be true of so-called "New Atheists" discussion. Another sense is that of "philosophical like Richard Dawkins. 1 But today and in the past there naturalism:' Here one is referring to an intention to let have been methodological naturalists who deny meta­ one's philosophical discussions be as science-like and physical naturalism. This is true of the great seven­ science-based as possible. You will see evidence of this teenth-century chemist Robert Boyle who spoke of the philosophy in action in this paper, but again it is not "wisdom of God" in making the world like a clock the main focus of discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Plantinga Argues That There Is Superficial Conflict but Deep Concord Between Science and Theistic Religion
    This is an accepted manuscript of an article published in Philosophia Reformata, 79 (I) (2014), 66-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000563 Where the conflict really lies: Plantinga, the challenge of evil, and religious naturalism Elizabeth D. Burns, Heythrop College, University of London In this paper I argue that, although Alvin Plantinga’s Felix Culpa theodicy appears on only two pages of his recent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (2011) (i.e. 58-59), it is of pivotal importance for the book as a whole. Plantinga argues that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and monotheism, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism. I contend that the weakness of the Felix Culpa theodicy lends support to the view that there is more than superficial conflict between science and monotheism, and offer an alternative response to the challenge of evil which suggests that there might be, after all, concord between science and (religious) naturalism. 1. Plantinga and the challenge of evil In order to show that, although there is superficial conflict, there is deep concord between science and monotheism, central to which is ‘the thought that there is such a person as God: a personal agent who has created the world and is all-powerful, all- knowing, and perfectly good’ (ix), Plantinga argues that God creates by means of the process of natural selection (39), that Michael Behe’s writings about irreducible complexity constitute a series of ‘design discourses’ for which there aren’t any defeaters (258), and that God’s miraculous interventions are not incompatible with an interpretation of natural laws as ‘descriptions of the material universe when God is not treating what he has made in a special way’ (119).
    [Show full text]