Warrant and Proper Function: The Cumulative Case for Naturalism

Alvin Plantinga

In his seminal work Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Plantinga argues that naturalism, the view that all reality is physical, is incompatible with theism, the view that God exists. Plantinga's argument is based on the idea of a warrant, which is a reason for believing something. Plantinga argues that there is no warrant for believing in naturalism, and that therefore naturalism is not a reasonable belief.

Plantinga's argument begins with the observation that naturalism is a metaphysical theory, which means that it is a theory about the nature of reality. As such, naturalism is not something that can be proven or disproven by scientific evidence. Instead, naturalism must be evaluated on the basis of its own internal coherence and plausibility.

Warrant and Proper Function

by Alvin Plantinga

4 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	1381 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	249 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE

Plantinga argues that naturalism is not internally coherent because it cannot account for the existence of consciousness. Consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon, and naturalism cannot explain how consciousness can arise from physical matter. Plantinga also argues that naturalism is not plausible because it cannot account for the existence of moral values. Moral values are objective and universal, but naturalism cannot explain how objective and universal moral values can arise from a purely physical universe.

Plantinga's argument against naturalism has been influential in the philosophy of religion. It has led many philosophers to question the reasonableness of naturalism, and it has helped to revive interest in theism. Warrant and Proper Function is a must-read for anyone interested in the philosophy of religion.

The Argument in Detail

Plantinga's argument against naturalism can be summarized as follows:

1. Naturalism is a metaphysical theory that claims that all reality is physical.
2. There is no warrant for believing in naturalism.
3. Therefore, naturalism is not a reasonable belief.

Plantinga's first premise is that naturalism is a metaphysical theory. This means that naturalism is a theory about the nature of reality. As such, naturalism cannot be proven or disproven by scientific evidence. Instead, naturalism must be evaluated on the basis of its own internal coherence and plausibility.

Plantinga's second premise is that there is no warrant for believing in naturalism. A warrant is a reason for believing something. Plantinga argues that there is no warrant for believing in naturalism because naturalism cannot account for the existence of consciousness or moral values.

Consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon. Naturalism cannot explain how consciousness can arise from physical matter. Moral values are objective and universal. Naturalism cannot explain how objective and universal moral values can arise from a purely physical universe.

Plantinga's third premise is that if there is no warrant for believing in naturalism, then naturalism is not a reasonable belief. This is because a reasonable belief is a belief that is supported by evidence or argument. Since there is no evidence or argument to support naturalism, naturalism is not a reasonable belief.

Plantinga's argument against naturalism is a powerful and influential argument. It has led many philosophers to question the reasonableness of naturalism, and it has helped to revive interest in theism. Warrant and Proper Function is a must-read for anyone interested in the philosophy of religion.

Warrant and Proper Function

by Alvin Plantinga

4 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	1381 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	249 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE