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):||23 May 2014|
|PDF File Size:||2.17 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.16 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. Conspicuously absent from either is an explanation of why we should trust our reasoning if ‘materialism’ is false.
With evolution, evolved brains would not be expected to always be reliable. He offers no proof as to even having perfect cognition as is implied that we get ‘from God’.
Why does Dawkins think there almost certainly isn’t any such person as God? If our brains are adapted to perceive reality as Jason says, why do we seem to overwhelmingly alvvin toward religious belief? What does it actually mean to say that our neurophysiology is adaptive but the resultant beliefs are not mostly true? According to his c.
Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins – ABC Religion & Ethics
Evolutionary theory was originally based on simple observations about macroscopic things and living beings – rocks, fossils, inheritance, selective breeding. One is left to wonder what basis God has for thinking He is perceiving things accurately.
I’m not arguing for nihilism here, just a proper understanding of the difficulties of the argument. What our brains appear to have been evolved for is not this higher level bickering, the metaphysical, and meta-metaphysical and uber-metaphysical digressions that I see this argument devolving into. I think you are pllantinga what I have said here. No one is suggesting that our senses and brains provide a completely reliable description of reality.
Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins
You say “lots of things with no apparent perception do quite well at reproduction,” but I can’t think of any animal at all that fits that description, let alone a highly complex one. I guess the cost of running away from a nonexistent danger is much lower for animals that eat grass.
God has created us in dawins image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. I have never been sure whether it was a slippery move or careless philosophy in part because Nagel’s idiological commitment in this piece discredited him in my eyes.
Personally, I would say that consciousness is a deeply mysterious phenomenon, and I don’t claim to have an explanation for it. In that book, he argues that the scientific theory of evolution shows that our world has not been designed – by God or anyone else. For those who believe in the scientific method, we will have to wait to see where the data takes us, after all science is more of a process than a set of axiomatic data.
Plantinga on Dawkins: Part One | ScienceBlogs
We need reliable perception and cognition to avoid harm from all sorts of causes–predation, starvation, dehydration, poisoning, exposure to the elements, and all sorts of physical injury. No coincidence, I’m sure.
Attacking Dawkins for doing a bad job of arguing that the emperor is naked or providing counterarguments in an attempt to show the emperor is not naked is a different issue.
You are commenting using your WordPress. Plantinga attempts to justify his position as follows: Ironically, Dawkins’ reasoning sounds a lot like Intelligent Design. It comes as no surprise then that Dr Sarfati also employes that well known creationist tactic of quoting out of context. Do you seriously believe that such errors would not have a strongly adverse effect on the dawkns of surviving and reproducing successfully?
Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable? But even so, Plantinga’s assumption of Christian theism is of little help in putting the daqkins of our cognitive faculties on solid ground. And our ability to intuitively understand the laws of nature is also limited, hence the counterintuitive nature of phenomena far outside the range of our ordinary experience of the world, such as those described by relativity and quantum mechanics.
If not, and the religious impulse is contrary to reality — culturally imposed, say — aren’t you demonstrating that xlvin brains are not adapted to deliver reality?
Alvin Plantinga Zings Richard Dawkins
BTW, K, where did you gain your “physics” and chemistry training? John Pieret, There is also the problem of how you explain the persistence and pervasiveness of religion.
There are many types of cognitive abilities. These things must be learned.
My thesis is that it has survived all the current attacks available in the literature. To the extent it’s not, alvim the result of the fall, e. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and no doubt a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now in response to this kind of theistic argument, Dawkins proposes that possibly, there are very many perhaps even infinitely many universes, with very many different distributions of values over the physical constants.