Theistic Moral Realism, Evolutionary Debunking Arguments, and a Catholic Philosophy of Nature

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Evolutionary debunking arguments, whether defended by Street (2006), Joyce (2006), or others against moral realism, or by Plantinga (1993, 2011) and others against atheism, seek to determine the implications of the still-dominant worldview of naturalism. Examining them is thus a critical component of any defense of a theistic philosophy of nature. Recently, several authors have explored the connection between evolutionary debunking arguments against moral realism (hence: EDAs) and Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalistic atheism (hence: EAAN). Typically, responses in this vein have been critical of EDAs, arguing that they are in some way self-undermining. Different critics have argued that, in the course of defending the EAAN, the theist loses her best response to the probabilistic argument from evil for atheism. Here, I provide the first systematic comparison of all three arguments—EDAs, the EAAN, and the problem of evil—and suggest that the first charge succeeds while the second fails.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-10-17
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
47 ( #51,272 of 58,385 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
41 ( #19,202 of 58,385 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.