Affiliation:
1. Cardiff University , Cardiff , United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
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.
Reference25 articles.
1. Attfield, Robin. “Work and the Human Essence.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 1:1 (1984), 141–50.
2. Attfield, Robin. “Meaningful Work and Full Employment.” Reason in Practice 1:1 (2001), 41–8.
3. Attfield, Robin. “Darwin’s Doubt, Non-Deterministic Darwinism and the Cognitive Science of Religion.” Philosophy 85:4 (2010), 465–83.
4. Attfield, Robin. Value, Obligation and Meta-Ethics. Leiden: Brill, [1995] 2019.
5. Behe, Michael. Darwin’s Black Box. New York: The Free Press, 1996.