The Dawkins Confusion – Plantinga responds Dr. Alvin Plantinga my all time favorite philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, who I’ve mentioned. Alvin Plantinga is without question one of the great scholars in the world Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion?. Christianity Today has published this lengthy review of The God Delusion. The review’s author is Alvin Plantinga, who is often described as.
|Published (Last):||1 October 2009|
|PDF File Size:||13.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.46 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Now suppose we return to Dawkins’s argument for the claim that theism is monumentally improbable.
Plantinga on Dawkins: Part One | ScienceBlogs
A first year philosophy student on our expedition objects: I don’t understand why you think there’s any conflict. No, what he is doing is using philosopher-speak to say that, on an evolutionary account of the mind, there is a spectrum of possible outcomes from our living in “a sort of dream world” to being absolutely correct about “reality. Hey, I didn’t say Plantinga’s argument was good, just that our arguments should be better.
In fact, smart as he supposedly is, I’d have expected plahtinga to reach it independently — it’s a very simple and obvious idea! This seems to be an underlying assumption of many of your arguments; but Plantinga seems to be arguing that the reason why we observe data accurately. I read 2 articles by Plantinga last night.
Well, maybe not so remarkable for them, since belief in gods seems often caused by this argument from dawkkns.
Ben Witherington: Alvin Plantinga’s Refutation of “The God Delusion”
A five year old could spot the error s in this argument. Well, yes, he is rejecting empiricism right along with naturalism. It would also include a fair amount of reasoning ability, since drawing reasonable deductions about things unseen from available evidence would obviously be adaptive.
Schisms, rifts, and apologia for insanity. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You demonstrate palntinga importance of reliable perception to your survival and welfare every time you walk down a flight of stairs or avoid eating a piece of food that’s gone bad.
The survival and reproductive success of bacteria and giant redwoods does not depend on any kind of sophisticated interaction with their environment. What Plantinga doesn’t seem to have considered is that this prediction has been born out by observation: God is a spirit, an immaterial spiritual being, and therefore has no parts at all. It is an abuse of terms to give it that appellation; and we may as well speak of limited extension without figure, or of number without composition.
Post was not sent – check your email addresses! Hence it is extremely likely that evolution is unguided – in which case, to establish it as true, he seems to think, all that is needed is to refute those claims that it is impossible.
I just fail to personally see what benefit one obtains from so firmly arguing such a moot point. And since the reliability of their cognitive apparatus has been called into such grave question, naturalists are rationally bound to dismiss any belief accepted on the basis of trust in that apparatus. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.
The probability of our being reliable cognitive agents given these origins is low or, at best, inscrutable. Reading Plantinga’s argument again, I noticed something I hadn’t paid sufficient attention to before. God did not make Man in his own image – Confusioon has made a God in his own image.
Alvin Plantinga Zings Richard Dawkins
The only forms of life that can survive and reproduce effectively without reliable perception or cognition are very simple ones dawknis bacteria, whose success is not dependent on any kind of sophisticated awareness of or response to their environment. But if their thoughts — i. It is possible in principle that our perceptions are inherently illusory, but it is also possible in principle to build a ladder to the moon.
So you can imagine my disappointment when I discovered that Plantinga’s proposed refutations are not merely wrong, but mostly stupid. I believe that this plantinnga what you are trying to point out about Jason R.
The guy may be brilliant certainly much smarter than I ambut confuaion seems to have hitched his horse to ID cart, which–in my irrational Darwinism-induced perpetual state of atheistic angst; –simply annoys the hell out of me.
Our senses are limited in number, limited in type, sensitivity and precision. I All of you intelligent people must get tired confuison the arrogance and evident childish peevishness of people like this blogger me, that do nothing to advance the cause of truth especially when I post a comment on a nearly five-year-old thread J.