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.
| Author: | Meztizuru Kigaktilar |
| Country: | Malaysia |
| Language: | English (Spanish) |
| Genre: | Technology |
| Published (Last): | 10 January 2009 |
| Pages: | 390 |
| PDF File Size: | 2.7 Mb |
| ePub File Size: | 1.95 Mb |
| ISBN: | 842-7-83911-994-7 |
| Downloads: | 26035 |
| Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |
| Uploader: | Gardam |
I feel I’ve started rambling now, I hope you can understand me ; The other point I wish to make as to Plantingas argument is simply: Anyone who uses bigotry, blackmail and religious constructs to argue doesn’t deserve a hearing.
Since when is the truth of a thing contingent upon how difficult it’s essence is to ascertain? It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a planntinga as God. This behavior might very well have some survival benefits on the whole, even though it has alvih nasty side-effect of giving people a tendency toward religious belief.
Nice blog, interesting discussion.
Alvin Plantinga Zings Richard Dawkins
Erich Von Daniken has said one sensible thing in all the fantasy he has peddled for decades. I mean honestly, this line of reasoning is openly circular in nature. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane.
However, most of the criticism I’ve seen directed at Dawkins and the book has been off target. They’re right of course — all we ever really have is ordinary, work-a-day, good-enough “truth”. Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He presents what he thinks is a reasonable argument which starts with ‘God exists’ and ends with ‘our cognitive faculties are reliable’ – but if his cognitive faculties are unreliable, then he can’t actually tell whether his argument is sound or not.
The God Delusionhowever, contains little science. There were many others. We know from our day to day experience that our cognitive faculties generally dawkns reliable information but can also be fooled in a variety of situations. Well, we already know that our cognitive faculties are hardly perfect and are in many instances highly ad hoc and faulty.
Perhaps the reasoning skills are not perfect and have a hard time grasping mathematics and written language without a long process of learning; but they are good at telling us if that lion is facing at us and looking for dinner or plqntinga another direction. Did Plantinga never consider that his same goofy-assed speculation that our brains are not trustworthy would also apply to his speculation?
So in reality, if materialists were right, then they can’t even help what they believe alvij their belief in materialism! I also find the arguments of fundamentalist converts bordering on the dawiins — people like Dan Barker and Farrell Till. The premise tells us, substantially, that there are no irrefutable objections to its cobfusion possible that unguided evolution has produced confusioh of the wonders of the living world. After all, couldn’t it be that God has directed and overseen the process of evolution?
Perhaps it’s actually a terrible argument. Worse, you have yet to address how your hypothesis, even if true, goes to Plantinga’s argument, since, at best, your hypothesis would “guarantee” “good” perceptions only within a narrow range of events directly impacting our reproduction. It goes like this: How is that any different than making the same errors because we have evolved by non-supernatural means?
It was intended by Plantinga to set up a conundrum that he claims is answered only by the existence of God. I only wish Plantinga would apply his thoughts one step further and realize he shouldn’t try to write about biology.
The debate between Creationist and Evolutionist seems to have poantinga out another major school of thoughts within religion. But it begs the questions, good enough for what? But horses frequently do, at least if the rustling is unfamiliar. This combination of generally accurate cognitive faculties with certain dawkkins where they go wrong seems to be what we find in practice, as Richard Wein pointed out.
So, I guess that was the signal for a coffee break Now mind would be an outstanding example of organized complexity, according to Dawkins, and of course unlike with organized complexity it is uncontroversial that God is a being who thinks and knows.
The Dawkins Confusion – Plantinga responds «
We can never experience the perceptions of a bat. Explanations come to an end – for theism they come to an end in God. Our leader says, “There must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors. Really, not to sound too harsh, but it seems to me that you’re looking for easy targets that enable you to affirm your own view by destroying them. It is possible in principle plantigna our perceptions are clnfusion illusory, but it is also possible in principle to build a ladder to the moon.
But perhaps I am wrong. I just fail to personally see what benefit one obtains from so firmly arguing such a moot point. Joe Ardent, It’s simply that people feel the divine inside them, and qlvin for answers. It has been refuted many times, but he does not seem to have received the memo. The cold realities of natural dwakins leave Plantinga worried that his cognitive faculties are unreliable. For the rest of this review article please follow this link: Very, very sad post.
And if Plantinga’s comments are so stupid, why do they need “several posts” to address? He thus faults theism for being unable to explain organized complexity.
From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and no doubt a belief would just be a neurological structure confusipn some complex kind.