Response to Churchland

Philo 13 (2):201-207 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Paul Churchland argues that Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism is unsuccessful and so we need not accept its conclusion. In this paper, we respond to Churchland’s argument. After we briefly recapitulate Plantinga’s argument and state Churchland’s argument, we offer three objections to Churchland’s argument: (1) its first premise has little to recommend it, (2) its second premise is false, and (3) its conclusion is consistent with, and indeed entails, the conclusion of Plantinga’s argument

Author's Profile

Aaron Segal
Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-09-18

Downloads
235 (#36,810)

6 months
15 (#59,221)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?