I think Draper gave a very good review of a very good book. Am I correct in thinking that Draper admitted in his review that materialism is refuted by Plantinga's EAAN?
I don't see Draper making a claim quite as strong as that in the review. In the relevant section of the review, Draper explains why Plantinga has revised his definition naturalism in the new book so as to entail materialism about human persons. Since naturalism, as Plantinga originally defined it, is merely the claim that there is no such person as God, his definition of naturalism doesn't entail materialism. But the problem is that a crucial piece of reasoning in Plantinga's EAAN assumes materialism about human persons, in which case Plantinga's reasoning wouldn't be a defeater for naturalism as originally defined.
You've probably seen it, but Draper's (2007) written debate with Plantinga on (among other things) the EAAN can be found here.
4 comments:
I think Draper gave a very good review of a very good book. Am I correct in thinking that Draper admitted in his review that materialism is refuted by Plantinga's EAAN?
Hi Bilbo,
I don't see Draper making a claim quite as strong as that in the review. In the relevant section of the review, Draper explains why Plantinga has revised his definition naturalism in the new book so as to entail materialism about human persons. Since naturalism, as Plantinga originally defined it, is merely the claim that there is no such person as God, his definition of naturalism doesn't entail materialism. But the problem is that a crucial piece of reasoning in Plantinga's EAAN assumes materialism about human persons, in which case Plantinga's reasoning wouldn't be a defeater for naturalism as originally defined.
You've probably seen it, but Draper's (2007) written debate with Plantinga on (among other things) the EAAN can be found here.
Best,
EA
No, I didn't know about Draper's debate with Plantinga. Thanks EA!
You bet!
Post a Comment