Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism

The thesis of this book is that the putative conflict between science and faith is a will of the wisp. The real conflict is not between science and faith but between science and a ‘naturalistic’, materialist view of the world. Scientists are not permitted to include theistic beliefs in their accounts of reality; they must adhere to the tenets of what is, in many cases, itself a quasi-religion—a worldview and method which limits the utilization of specific material.When we look more closely we find that faith is quite commensurate with science. Science, like faith, assumes that there are continuities in our experience. We do not live in a chaotic, haphazard, unpredictable world. The conclusions of Galileo’s falling body experiments would be the same if he conducted them a week earlier or a month later. This divine underwriting of experience was assumed by nearly all of the great scientists of the renaissance and enlightenment.With Darwin comes an alteration, but only when Darwin is misread. Evolutionary science is fully commensurate with faith. Unguided evolution is not, but unguided evolution is not a part of evolutionary science. It is a metaphysical add-on, something introduced by contemporary atheists.Real evolutionary science actually conflicts with naturalism. How? A non-teleological evolutionary science fails to account for (and support) human beliefs. Selection may confer an evolutionary advantage but it does not reinforce belief. It simply contributes to the persistence of our gene pool. We may evolve in such a way that we become more ‘fit’ but that does not also mean that we are more ‘right’, that our beliefs are undergirded, confirmed and extended. Science depends upon belief and the confirmability and falsifiability of our beliefs. Unguided evolution cannot account for systematic belief, but theism can.In the course of examining these issues Plantinga looks at other aspects of contemporary apologetics, e.g. the ‘fine tuning’ argument and the possibility for explaining divine intervention without the disruption of continuity via the use of quantum mechanics. He is very direct and honest in his assessments of these various arguments, even when the chapters end on a limp note. ‘Sorry,’ he says, ‘I would like to be more dramatic and decisive and definitive but I have an obligation to tell what I believe to be the truth.’ His writing ‘voice’ is attractive, engaging and quite entertaining. He utilizes superb examples and interjects comic sidebars and asides.One of the interesting aspects of the book is its graphic design. The text appears in two founts with the main thrust of the argument in larger type than the detailed arguments which support it. Those arguments can become quite technical. While the overall thrusts of the book will be accessible to all interested readers, the formal demonstrations are complex, with lengthy equations and the application of logic that goes beyond simple syllogisms.Fundamentally this is an important book on an important subject by an important philosopher of religion. It will repay attention as it summarizes many contemporary issues and arguments.

This is the first time I have read Plantinga, and I must say that he does keep it classy. He served Dawkins with some fresh scones and hot tea from a china teakettle that had been orbiting the sun for some time now. And he kept his pinky raised the entire time.First of all, I confess I am something of a dilettante when it comes to philosophy, and so I am writing this review from the perspective of one who has not sat through formal logic, probability theory, or even philosophy 101. My background is in the biological sciences. The question is whether or not the philosophical lay person can pick up this book and get something out of it. My conclusion is that they can. Plantinga's material is not overly difficult to understand, and he uses a smaller font to delineate the more technical bits, in case a reader wants to avoid the work and simply get to the point. I found that I could understand the technical arguments without too much difficulty. So don't be intimidated, I think anyone with a serious interest in the topic can learn from this book.Next, I would like to respond to some reviewers below. James R. mentions that the "Fine Tuning" argument developed by Plantinga has been discredited by Stenger's book on the same subject. I think that is a very strong statement to make in the current "highly charged" environment where we all know that everyone has an agenda. See the following review excerpt commenting on Stenger's book..."Whether before or after you purchase this highly flawed book, do a search for the on-line version of physicist Luke A. Barnes' ARXIV paper, "The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life" (December 21, 2011). This is a devastating critique of Stenger's book. These days Stenger is less of a serious scientist, and more of a freethinker on a relentless quest to undermine theism. He mainly flies low on the academic radar, releasing a barrage of popular level works aimed at religious apologists."... I think we can all agree that it is not a given that Plantinga has been taken down on this point when physicists do not agree on that subject. My personal opinion is that the multiverse argument is actually a "god of the gaps" argument for the naturalist, because sure, there could be an infinite number of infinite universes, and I could be sitting on a magical pink unicorn right now. The argument for the multiverse is purely metaphysical. And that is okay, as long as we admit that it is so. I hope we all can see that the "god of the gaps" can be invoked by anyone, even naturalists. And Plantinga's point is NOT that "fine tuning disproves E&N" but that "fine tuning creates different probabilities which are better explained by T" when given a probabilistic treatment.Responding to Christopher H. below, I was tickled by the title of his review, given that he himself is an ex-philosophy student and not a scientist. I was even more tickled when I clicked on his reviews to discover that he is on a relentless mission as an Atheist to finally disabuse himself of all vestigial remnants of theistic thinking. Of course I respect that, as I am sure he is hoping that he believes a true belief that conforms to reality. His main beef with Plantinga is that this book mention's Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument. He seems to infer that any time "Behe" is mentioned, the author must be trying to discredit methodological naturalism. I certainly did not come away with that impression by reading this book, and in fact, Plantinga rather pointedly refrains from sharing his personal beliefs regarding evolution. (Though I am suspecting that he is in the BioLogos camp, along with Francis Collins, which would mean that he fully accepts methodological naturalism)Finally, the reason that I purchased this book is that I have long felt that the Christian community is "barking up the wrong tree" when it comes to a certain anti-science mindset. In fact, I was thinking that his title referred to "where the conflict really lies" between science and theism--and that is an epistemological/metaphysical conflict, ie: philosophic naturalism. However, Plantinga's title actually refers to his own, somewhat different thesis concerning "where the conflict really lies"--and he shows that the conflict really lies between naturalism and science. Even better. Q.E.D.

Such a great book ✨

Jedem, den das Thema interessiert, kann man Plantingas - der sicherlich zu den bedeutendsten Religionphilosphen unserer Tage zählt - Werk empfehlen. In seinen Kapitel wendet er sich mehreren Themen zu, die im Kontext Wissenschaft und Religion (oder manchmal auch aufgefasst als Wissenschaft vs Religion) als problematisch erachtet werden, z.B. was die Evolution angeht oder "interventionstisches" Handeln Gottes. Neben meiner Meinung nach überzeugender Argumentation, dass der Konflikt - wenn es überhaupt einen gibt - zwischen Wissenschaft und Religion oberflächlicher Natur (die Übereinstimmung beider jedoch tiefgreifend ist) ist und sich diese Verhältnisse in umgekehrter Form auf den Naturalismus und Wissenschaft beziehen lassen, widment Plantinga die letzten 50 Seiten seinem Evolutionsargument gegen den Naturalismus, nutzt also etwas, das häufig als Stütze des Naturalismus verstanden wird, um zu argumentieren, dass der "Glaube" Evolution und Naturalismus zusammengenommen rational unhaltbar und somit nicht vertretbar ist. Ich finde das Buch vor allem im Vergleich anderer philosophischer SChriften wirklich angenehm (im Sinne von leicht) zu lesen und dürfte auch mit etwas mehr Aufwand von Lesern ohne philosophische Vorbildung gut verstanden werden.

This book is a great work by Alvin Plantings. Essentially Plantinga is attempting to give reasonable evidence for his thesis which is; to show that there is deep Concord between religious faith and science and deep conflict between naturalism and science. While this book by no means gives conclusive proof for the existence of God it certainly gives enough philosophical reason to believe there is Concord between religion and science. While it won't sway the atheist (and nothing can except God alone through his holy spirit) it is a great work of apologetics and should be added to the collection for further evidence to suggest the reliability of Christianity.

Much here will be familiar to Plantinga enthusiasts: smarting critiques of Dawkins and Dennet, epistemological musings, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and so on. But there's a wealth of new material too. His thoughts on divine action, for instance, are especially thought-provoking. And the overall presentation is both bold and clear-sighted. But it is Plantinga's intellectual honesty that most impresses.Now, Plantinga is of course an analytic philosopher, through and through. But non-specialists needn't worry. All logical-mathematical equations are relegated to smaller-print sections, which are passable. It's lighthearted too, in a winking sort of way. It will be required reading, no doubt, in philosophy of religion programs. First-class.

This was not an easy book to read, but having got the bit between my teeth, I am very glad that I did so. On the basis of a first careful reading, my conclusion is that David Robertson did actually read the same book, whereas Mr Van Berg appears to have been reading something else - or perhaps skipped to the bits he wanted to disagree with. Plantinga is, for instance, quite careful to define what he means by 'random' when he describes natural selection, and he frequently cites key evolutionary scientists when he does so.Having dabbled a little in the past with Plantinga's writings, and found them pretty challenging, I did find that the approach he has adopted here was extremely helpful. The inclusion of more technical material, more apposite for those with some background in the discipline of philosophy, but identified by means of a distinct typeface, was very helpful. This enabled me to make decisions about whether I should skip material or not (actually, 'not' became more frequent as one worked through the book) - and reinforced the fact that the book is appropriate for both novices and the more capable.Plantinga's style of writing does encourage engagement with his subject, and he systematically advances his case (that theism and science are not in conflict, but that theism and science ARE in conflict with naturalism) by steady increments. His examination of the somewhat tenuous arguments employed by Messrs Dawkins and Dennett was particularly helpful - mainly because Plantinga's analysis helps to bring clarity to help one to see through the kinds of crassly dogmatic claims advanced by such individuals in pursuit of an anti-theistic worldview.This kind of steady, systematic building of a case is very much Plantinga's hallmark. I can now understand that readers who jump in with 'Warranted Christian Belief' would struggle with it, given all the foundational work that he had constructed in the previous two volumes. This (for Plantinga) relatively brief work shows the care and rigour which he brings to his subject - unlike Dennett and Dawkins, and their acolytes, he takes great care to ensure that the groundwork is in place before he starts to build the upper stories of his case.Another strength with this book is its structure. The 'Contents' section shows an utterly methodical breakdown of sections and subsections - and in the preface, he takes care to outline what it is that he is going to show his reader. I would like to think that this level of rigour would appeal to theists and atheists alike, and would hope that we would not see too much of the ritual shooting down of the great man - but I'm not going to hold my breath!I would recommend this to any Christian wishing to work through issues relating to the interaction between 'faith' and 'science'. You will find that Plantinga's clarity and rigour will help clear many of the red-herrings out of the way, and reduce the arguments to their key components. An enlightening exercise, where so much else that goes on is an exercise in refined obfuscation!