"Was Fred's death accidental?": Science between theism and naturalism

The article reveals the main provisions of the discussion on the relationship between modern science and theism between two famous American philosophers - the naturalist Daniel Dennett and the "analytic theist" Alvin Plantinga. The debate took place in 2009 as part of the session of the Central Division of the American Philosophical Association and was published in 2011 under the title "Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?" The positions of the analyzed discussion are reproduced in connection with the example proposed by Dennett. The example tells about an investigation into the causes of the sudden death of the art critic Fred, which symbolizes the process of evolution. Dennett believes that the cause of death of an art critic is natural, and the theistic interpretation offers an excessive and irrational explanation, arguing about God as the leader of the evolutionary process (in the example, the analogue of God is the artist Tom, who has supernatural abilities). Dennett's key argument boils down to considering supernatural interference as an excessive addition to the naturalistic vision of the world - in fact, naturalists do not need to substantiate the non-existence of the Creator, since it is already implied at the level of common sense as a condition of scientific research ("trial"). Naturalism is practically justified. Plantinga agrees with Dennett that Tom's imaginary abilities cannot be taken into account in a serious investigation. However, from his point of view, there is no basis for an analogy between a finite being with superpowers (Tom) and the absolute and transcendent God of theism. Thus, rejecting both the naturalistic interpretation of the evolutionary process as quasi-religious, and the imaginary intervention of a finite being with superpowers, Plantinga recognizes God as a possible (and even justified) cause of the evolutionary process. The article concludes that the polemical confrontation between naturalism and theism continues to be open and this circumstance has a positive effect on both competing parties in terms of stimulating constant clarification and improvement of their own argumentation.