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):||27 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||14.91 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.77 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You are commenting using your WordPress.
Alvin Plantinga Zings Richard Dawkins
The kindest thing I can say about the more philosophically oriented parts of the book is that Dawkins has no talent for writing about philosophy. If yet another Jason could chime conufsion here, I would like to address both sides of this protracted arguement here. The theory of evolution would indeed predict that our cognitive faculties are sufficient enough for us to survive for the most part, but not necessarily totally reliable.
Why is the other view a “naive hope” but not this one? At last, I thought, I would find what serious, high-powered Christianity has to offer against Dawkins’ assertions.
How do you know, if our perceptions can deliver illusions? Why not early belief in Santa Claus? Thanks for the post.
So, I guess that was the signal for a coffee break Plantingga example, how could he write about ethics and not mention Euthyphro? In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding. But how does the evidence of evolution reveal a thing like that?
People who opposed phrenology? Our vulnerability to perceptual illusions and cognitive biases is real but limited.
Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins – ABC Religion & Ethics
Neil, it does seem odd to me what Dawkins is arguing. The only way I can make sense of it is if it is adaptive to have mostly false beliefs. That’s because how accurate the information that is needed to determine where on the spectrum it is, is itself dependent on where the mind falls on the spectrum. What would this look like?
The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins’s naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. Platinga has the same problem, of course. And also Deluded by Dawkins? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins Alvin Plantinga.
Once all the smoke and mirrors are removed from the discussion, even ID’s biggest hero was forced to admit that without faith in an omnipotent diety, there is simply not enough empirical proof that cannot be explained away swinging in creationisms favor to win the argument at hand.
It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. I believe that this is what you are trying to point out about Jason R. This is a complex phenomenon requiring a darn good explanation.
It still is to a great extent. So you can imagine my disappointment when I discovered that Plantinga’s proposed refutations are not merely wrong, but mostly stupid. The echo-chamber of Twitter has had a peculiar effect on Richard Dawkins. How is that any different than making the same errors because we have evolved by confusiion means? Evolution by natural selection allows us to make sense of why that is.
Sorry guys, but we can argue about this point later. Instead, he is arguing that the only way we can “know” that is if God gave us the proper equipment to do so.
Recently a number of thinkers have proposed a new version of the argument from design, the so-called “Fine-Tuning Argument.
I think you are misconstruing what I have said here. A first year philosophy student on our expedition objects: It was the gold standard in confusioon field.
Plantinga has replied to Sober and Fitelson. There are circumstances where it might do that. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.
Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins
Numbers past three digit strings such as phone numbers are not a natural trait. If consciousness has no practical effect, there is no adaptive reason for it to evolve at all. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true?
Wouldn’t that tend to indicate that god s are real? Well, a few of us: As Jason R put it:. The naturalist can be reasonable sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive: In most cases, however, I do not think he has even understood the questions. Noting the considerable length of the review just under words, not counting endnotesI figured that Plantinga must have put considerable effort into his arguments.
It is not remotely plausible that our survival and reproductive success is not intimately related to the reliability of our perception and understanding of our environment. We all have a need to feel that we are important and useful to our society on a phenomenal level, this is driven by again a desire for reproductive success and the longevity to ensure reproductive success. In organisms that reproduce slowly, like humans, it will nearly always be the case that those who perceive the world accurately will live longer and reproduce more successfully than those who do not.
Connections Reloaded by Ajay D’Souza. March 4, at 4: The probability of our being reliable cognitive agents given these origins is low or, at best, inscrutable. All of these supposed higher level functions beyond these basic survival mechanisms have really only begun to blossom since the mental “big bang” of 50, years ago.