Alvin Plantinga’s understanding of necessity is discussed. The kinds of necessity, as seen by Plantinga, are indicated, and concepts are described which are sometimes identified with the concept of necessity. The distinction between de dicto necessity and de re necessity is the principal matter for Plantinga. After their short characteristic, the attempts of the de re necessity rejection, undertaken by some authors, are presented. In the final part of the paper Plantinga’s argumentation aiming at defense of the de re necessity is discussed. Critical remarks, concerning the presented material, are a part of the paper.
Using Feyerabend's argumentation, and rephrasing of the problem in terms of the Model of Levels of Analysis, I show that a good empiricist need not be a (metaphysical or methodological) naturalist. I characterize the ideas of Alvin Plantinga and Jitse M. van der Meer as being representative of two different varieties of theistic response to the problem of the relationship between Christianity and contemporary science. Against van der Meer, I argue for Plantinga's conclusion about the value of theism-based science. Against both approaches, I point to situations where theistic assumptions do indeed influence the contents of observation.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.