WHERE THE CONFLICT REALLY LIES: PLANTINGA, THE CHALLENGE OF EVIL, AND RELIGIOUS NATURALISM
In: Philosophia ReformataSearch for other papers by Elizabeth D. Burns in
Current site
Google Scholar
In this paper I argue that, although Alvin Plantinga’s Felix Culpa theodicy appears on only two pages (i.e. 58-59) of his recent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (2011), 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.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 275 | 39 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 157 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 48 | 2 | 0 |
WHERE THE CONFLICT REALLY LIES: PLANTINGA, THE CHALLENGE OF EVIL, AND RELIGIOUS NATURALISM
In: Philosophia ReformataSearch for other papers by Elizabeth D. Burns in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
In this paper I argue that, although Alvin Plantinga’s Felix Culpa theodicy appears on only two pages (i.e. 58-59) of his recent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (2011), 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.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 275 | 39 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 157 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 48 | 2 | 0 |