Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism Hardcover – December 9, 2011

Normally I don’t read apologetics books…. to tell you the truth I am not a huge fan of apologetics. If you want to know why you can ask me later. The truth is though, this book is not an apologetics book it is a philosophy book; Philosophy of Religion meets Philosophy of Science. And by “religion” I don’t simply mean Christianity, I (and Plantinga) include Naturalism within the scope of “religion.” Drawing mainly from the fields of Evolution, Divine Action Theory, and Physics Plantinga shows where the conflict really lies. His thesis is that “there is a superficical conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” He proves this thesis in four steps: 1-show the alleged conflicts between science and Christianity are not really conflicts at all, 2-show that the superficial conflicts between science and Christianity are not “defeater” type conflicts, 3-show that there is deep concord between Christianity and Science, 4- Show that there is deep conflict between Naturalism and Science. He shows this last point by arguing that naturalistic evolution is self-defeating. It is self-defeating because given naturalism and evolution our cognitive faculties are not reliable. While I don’t normally read apologetics I can recommend this philosophy book as an apologetics book because I feel like that is how most Christians will end up using this book anyway.

(Note: This was my top Philosophy/Apologetics book of 2012)

Plantinga's analysis is sharp, clear, concise. The book provides a much needed contrast to noise that has been created by the New Atheists. The book provides a clearer picture of Science, than the idol worship done by those under the throws of Scientism.

Excellence is not the word, this book entails intellectual rigor and a complete dismantling of modern objections to Theism.

The first two chapters specifically deal with Richard Dawkins (Blind Watchmaker), Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) and Paul Draper's (Philosophical journals) claims of Thiesm being incompatible with evolutionary science. Plantinga shows that this nonsense is indeed false, as there is nothing strong to support this other than an emotional stance of having a dislike for Theism.

I for one do not find anything, in modern Big Bang cosmology or evolutionary theory which causes my theistic beliefs any problems at all. I embrace these scientific theories as wonderful ways of explaining how God created the incredible universe we live in. The question of WHY is behind all such how's is not a scientific question and therefore I don't expect science to answer a question it cannot concern itself with. But science does not contradict my theism.

Plantinga then moves onto claims from classical science (very interesting scenario regarding Laplace that definitely provides food for thought) as well as the new picture that involved QM, and successfully shows why there is no conflict involved there as well.

Biblical criticism is next up, and Plantinga goes into different accounts of claims towards Christianity. I enjoyed Plantinga's description of methodological naturalism (MN), as he distinguishes the differences between Strong MN and Weak MN. He goes over what are supposedly defeaters (rebutting and undercutting) to Christianity and dissects them into trivial objections.

Although the final Chapter was by far my favorite of the whole book. I've used the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) plenty of times in discussions, and I have yet to see any real rebuttal that shows this argument to be weak. About 9 out of 10 people will not even understand the argument and attack strawmen, whilst making non-sequitors, and the other 10% either take it by FAITH that their cognitive faculties are reliable or they just admit that this indeed a serious problem with their beliefs in naturalism + evolution combined and in conclusion they do not have answer to this argument as of now. I've actually had people concede to the defeater thesis whilst not realizing the consequences of what that involves. I take it there are some who are ok with thinking Schizophrenia can lead us to reliable perceptions and brain functions.

So naturalism [moreso given materialism] has a very special epistemic problem. How do I know that I am not just evolved PURELY for the purposes of survival and nothing else? This means that what I take to be true is just what my genes want me to take as true because it is best for the heuristic purposes it is being put to task to perform. On naturalism a naturalist has a very good reason to think she may well be permanently deceived about a great many things!

All and all this is a must buy for anyone in the Philosophy of Religion, Apologetics, the Philosophy of Epistemology, the philosophy of Mind, or just someone who wants food for thought regarding the arguments that deconstruct those who say there is an incompatibility between Science and Religion.

ty

Overall the book was good, but was very wordy (with technical terms). I thought the book could have been written in more layman terms, which I think would have been better recieved by the general public..I felt like I was reading a doctoral dissertation, when simpler terminology could have been used to convey the same points.

Very engaging arguements presenting an alternative path to traditional studies of science and religion; got a little too technical in certain sections