Implications of Evolution for Metaphysics
Regular price
€107.99
14 days return policy
Shipping & Delivery
A01=David H. Gordon
Age Group_Uncategorized
Age Group_Uncategorized
analytic philosophy
atheism
Author_David H. Gordon
automatic-update
Category1=Non-Fiction
Category=HPJ
Category=HRAB1
Category=PSAJ
Category=QDTJ
Category=QRAB1
Charles Darwin
COP=United States
Darwinism
Delivery_Delivery within 10-20 working days
epistemology
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_science
evidentialism
evolutionary psychology
evolutionary theory
fideism
history of science
Language_English
metaphysical naturalism
New Atheists
orthodoxy
PA=Available
philosophy of biology
philosophy of science
Price_€50 to €100
PS=Active
science & religion
softlaunch
theology
Product details
- ISBN 9781666923728
- Weight: 667g
- Dimensions: 160 x 236mm
- Publication Date: 22 Aug 2023
- Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
- Publication City/Country: US
- Product Form: Hardback
- Language: English
Secure
checkout
Fast Shipping
Easy returns
After the nineteenth-century “turn from idealism,” when idealist philosophies were largely abandoned for materialist ones, many analytic philosophers have adhered to scientific naturalism as the new orthodoxy, largely due to the success of scientific advancements. The New Atheists, such as Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, claim it is Darwin who deserves much of the credit for repudiating the traditional Mind-first world view. In The Implications of Evolution for Metaphysics: Theism, Idealism, and Naturalism, David H. Gordon explores questions such as: Is it true that evolution is incompatible with theism and necessarily results in naturalism? Is it possible, as naturalism maintains, that everything can be reduced to physical processes? Or are there too many recalcitrant phenomena that defy reduction? Can the epistemological conditions for metaphysical knowledge be met? If the underdetermination of theory allows for multiple metaphysical theories to cover the same phenomena, with each offering an epistemically adequate explanation, then neither naturalism nor theism can be asserted to be objectively true. Nevertheless, it is possible to favor one over the other based on overall coherence and explanatory power.
David H. Gordon is assistant teaching professor at Loyola University Maryland.
