抵制达尔文主义的原因，以及为什么他们不应该被信任

IF 0.3 0 RELIGION

Open Theology Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1515/opth-2020-0153

R. Attfield

{"title":"抵制达尔文主义的原因，以及为什么他们不应该被信任","authors":"R. Attfield","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Plantinga argues that Darwinism implies that we cannot help adopting our apparently reflective beliefs, and that this is a reason for rejecting Darwinism. I argue that similar arguments apparently apply to the beliefs crucial to deliberation, meaningful work, meaningful relationships, meaningful communication and creativity. But these arguments apply to deterministic versions of Darwinism only. Cogent non-deterministic versions have been propounded by Popper, Rose, Lewontin, Ward and Miller (those of Ward and Miller being theistic versions). These versions are presented, as is Midgley’s account of how evolution has endowed us with a mix of desires that prepare the way for choice. Plantinga-type arguments pose no problem for such non-deterministic Darwinisms.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0153","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasons for Resisting Darwinism, and Why They Should Not Be Credited\",\"authors\":\"R. Attfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opth-2020-0153\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Plantinga argues that Darwinism implies that we cannot help adopting our apparently reflective beliefs, and that this is a reason for rejecting Darwinism. I argue that similar arguments apparently apply to the beliefs crucial to deliberation, meaningful work, meaningful relationships, meaningful communication and creativity. But these arguments apply to deterministic versions of Darwinism only. Cogent non-deterministic versions have been propounded by Popper, Rose, Lewontin, Ward and Miller (those of Ward and Miller being theistic versions). These versions are presented, as is Midgley’s account of how evolution has endowed us with a mix of desires that prepare the way for choice. Plantinga-type arguments pose no problem for such non-deterministic Darwinisms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Theology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0153\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0153\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要Plantinga认为，达尔文主义意味着我们不能不采用我们明显的反思性信仰，这是拒绝达尔文主义的原因。我认为，类似的论点显然适用于对深思熟虑、有意义的工作、有意义关系、有意义沟通和创造力至关重要的信念。但这些论点只适用于达尔文主义的确定性版本。Popper、Rose、Lewontin、Ward和Miller提出了Cogent非确定性版本（Ward和米勒的版本是有神论版本）。这些版本被呈现出来，正如Midgley对进化如何赋予我们多种欲望的描述一样，这些欲望为我们的选择做好了准备。Plantinga类型的论点对这种非确定性达尔文主义没有问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Reasons for Resisting Darwinism, and Why They Should Not Be Credited

Abstract Plantinga argues that Darwinism implies that we cannot help adopting our apparently reflective beliefs, and that this is a reason for rejecting Darwinism. I argue that similar arguments apparently apply to the beliefs crucial to deliberation, meaningful work, meaningful relationships, meaningful communication and creativity. But these arguments apply to deterministic versions of Darwinism only. Cogent non-deterministic versions have been propounded by Popper, Rose, Lewontin, Ward and Miller (those of Ward and Miller being theistic versions). These versions are presented, as is Midgley’s account of how evolution has endowed us with a mix of desires that prepare the way for choice. Plantinga-type arguments pose no problem for such non-deterministic Darwinisms.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Open Theology RELIGION-

CiteScore

1.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

15 weeks

期刊介绍： Open Theology is an international Open Access, peer-reviewed academic journal that welcomes contributions written in English addressing religion in its various forms and aspects: historical, theological, sociological, psychological, and other. The journal encompasses all major disciplines of Theology and Religious Studies, presenting doctrine, history, organization and everyday life of various types of religious groups and the relations between them. We publish articles from the field of Theology as well as Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology of Religion and also dialogue between Religion and Science. The Open Theology does not present views of any particular theological school nor of a particular religious organization. The contributions are written by researchers who represent different religious views. The authors present their research concerning the old religious traditions as well as new religious movements. The aim of the journal is to promote an international and interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of Theology and Religious Studies. The journal seeks also to provide researchers, pastors and other interested persons with the fruits of academic studies.