Response to Wunder
Objective probability, non-contingent theism, and the Eaan
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20312506 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Perry Hendricks, Perry C Hendricks (0000-0002-9753-6914, Western University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 292-296 |
| Publication date | 2020-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412518000306 |
| OpenAlex | W2802448589 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 6 |
This article is a response to Tyler Wunder's ‘The modality of theism and probabilistic natural theology: a tension in Alvin Plantinga's philosophy’ (this journal). In his article, Wunder argues that if the proponent of the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) holds theism to be non-contingent and frames the argument in terms of objective probability, then the EAAN is either unsound or theism is necessarily false. I argue that a modest revision of the EAAN renders Wunder's objection irrelevant, and that this revision actually widens the scope of the argument
Argument (complex analysis) · Epistemology · Naturalism · Theism · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.25 |
| Citation span | 2018 - 2020 (3) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |