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):||24 December 2008|
|PDF File Size:||10.7 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.96 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
But my take is that Plantinga plans on being the smartest guy in the room when he’s telling somebody why this is such a good argument is his favor for some reason. In fact, we know that we are subject to a variety of kinds of perceptual illusion and cognitive bias. Before looking more closely into his reasoning, I’d like to digress for a moment. Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. But that is certainly not a point against theism.
Therefore, we don’t experience reality in it’s totality; we experience the limited portion of reality that is amenable to our senses and reason a “dream world” as Plantinga calls it. I still don’t understand why you can’t grasp this obvious fact.
I don’t think that any atheist has a problem with the concept that a god belief has granted an evolutionary advantage to various tribes and societies. Alvln would argue as Dawkins always does that cultural evolution plantinnga proven to run circles around what the medium of natural selection has been able to accomplish whether that be good or bad.
A mind, whose acts and sentiments and ideas are not distinct and successive; one, that is wholly simple, and totally immutable, is a mind which has no thought, no reason, no will, no sentiment, no love, no hatred; or, in a word, is no mind at all.
It’s not clear if God-perceivers are just lucky or elect, i. Perhaps you can explain to me why people are praising this article.
Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins
Both comments and pings are currently closed. He appeals to “the anthropic principle,” the thought that the only sort of universe in plahtinga we could be discussing this question is one which is fine-tuned for life:. That claim is simply wrong, for the reasons that have already been explained at length. This immaterial aspect of man means that he is more than matter, so his thoughts are likewise not bound by the makeup of his brain. Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists avlin come out of the closet.
I don’t think so. Surely it’s clear that this is not true, as such an illusion would be maladaptive. Assuming that I am now interpreting him correctly, I would say that the first argument makes more sense than Plantinga’s.
You demonstrate the importance of reliable perception to your survival and welfare every time you alcin down a flight of stairs or avoid eating a piece of food that’s gone bad. I remember a similar misuse of the Courtier’s Reply in the comments of the post “Do the more pkantinga skeptics misunderstand religion? Why don’t you come adwkins and say what point of view you really mean. From a theistic point of view, we’d expect that our cognitive faculties would be for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats reliable.
The Dawkins Confusion – Plantinga responds «
Natural selection does favor certain kinds of erroneous thinking. And yet arguments against particular acts of violence can be effective — even if human nature itself fails to change. But perhaps I am wrong. On the other hand, in matters that are mostly irrelevant to survival, like an ability to understand quantum mechanics or partial differential equations, or in instances where false beliefs might actually be adaptive, such as a tendency to attribute agency to things that lack it, natural selection might lead to less reliable cognitive faculties.
Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex confusoin is – God, being plntinga, would then be highly complex. I just wanted to comment very lightly on the inappropriateness of searching for “intellectual respectability” in the context of pantinga religion.
All he actually does is make the claim, however.
Er, all of it. Yeah, reading philosophers does that to me as well.
Most of what you say is not different in substance from conusion I’ve been saying, though the problem of knowledge is more serious, philosophically, than I think you are acknowledging.
If not for the Yucatan Meteor, maybe the dinosaurs would have taken man’s place. Adaptive evolution seems plenty adequate to get us that much. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in having nose hairs.
This will be my last post. That leaves us with the problem of scope: Natural selection guides evolution and that is why we the selected understand our world so well. So dawins broader conclusion is that one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. If there is Something Else, we probably couldn’t understand it anyway.
Dawkins appears to think the probability of the existence of God is in that same neighbourhood – so small as to be negligible for all practical and most impractical purposes.
Alvin Plantinga Zings Richard Dawkins | Denny Burk
I guess the sophisticated arguments against Dawkins are being worked cnfusion in the super secret labs where all that cutting edge ID research is going on. What I hear here to paraphrase is that you are saying that our cognitive ability plays little or no role in reproductive success true and that Jason R.
Learn how your comment data is processed. Evolutionary theory was originally based on simple observations about macroscopic things and living beings – rocks, fossils, inheritance, selective breeding. But what I think bothers him most about the idea that we cannot trust our cognitive faculties to be absolutely reliable is that Plantinga’s cohfusion argument is that belief in God is a “properly basic belief,” one which is so self-evident that it needs no further justification.
If consciousness has no practical effect, there is no adaptive reason for it to evolve at all.
Alvin Plantinga Zings Richard Dawkins
How well has debated is of course a different story. I think other commenters have touched some other fallacies, but just to make it clear I will spell the cofusion. That is why the lack of perception and cognition in bacteria and plants is irrelevant to the problem with Plantinga’s claim.