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: Kijas Tygonris
Country: Dominican Republic
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 24 October 2006
Pages: 237
PDF File Size: 10.81 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.26 Mb
ISBN: 385-7-99086-927-5
Downloads: 35018
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zologore

As Alan Cromer once put it, science is “uncommon sense. Both comments and pings are currently closed. I agree with Jason and various commenters that the quality of apologetics on display is almost infantile in its stupidity. But concede for the moment that indeed there are many universes and that it is likely that some are fine-tuned and life-friendly.

As Jason R connfusion it: 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. Whilst Plantinga is a wonderful philosopher, CS Lewis was a better writer, so, perhaps you’d have more luck wrapping your head around this version: Daqkins can we get access to the cookbook, or conufsion the cook, other than in a circular way?

I’m no philosopher, and even plantingaa of a scientist, so I had to think very hard and re-read several paragraphs throughout his review. If consciousness has no practical effect, there is no adaptive reason for it to evolve at all.

But I have to ask here, what is it you would accept as sufficient empirical proof? 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. No, our brains were not evolved for any teleological purpose at all; but like Jason R.


The snarky “memo” comment aside, truly you jest? What makes Dawkins think evolution is unguided? Dawkins labels the “God hypothesis” as “too easy,” or a “cop out.

The feeling is real. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there confsion such a person as God.

Again, this is irrelevant.

Our brains could form models of the world and act on them without the need for any conscious awareness of those models.

But suppose God is a numbskull–suppose God dawknis mistakes tree stumps for bears, or fire trucks for dragons. No one has ever enhanced his fitness by taking hallucinatory drugs. Steven Weinberg reviews The God Delusion.

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. Algin is the basis for believing anything else? They are near enough for the practical purposes of pre-technological societies.

The Dawkins Confusion – by Alvin Plantinga | Apologetics

Beloved, I don’t think Plantinga was arguing that atheism and naturalism are self-defeating, and therefore impossible. I’d rather watch you tear it apart. Unfortunately however the proper function of the sensus divinitatis does not correlate to anything else functioning properly e.

Yeah, reading philosophers does that to me as well. You are honouring with the appellation of Atheist all the sound, orthodox divines, almost, who have treated of this subject; and you will at last be, yourself, found, according to your reckoning, the only sound Theist in the world Cognitive talents do NOT necessarily provide the all access backstage pass to ‘how to build the better mousetrap’.

They will be more reliable when directly relating to the environmental conditions in which they evolved. And, by the way, since when aren’t bacteria animals? BTW, K, where did you gain your “physics” and chemistry training? But I suppose it’s a good thing that there are truly brilliant people out there who can go tit-for-tat with deluded scientists and atheologians like Dawkins. As regular readers of this blog are aware, I find the central truth claims of Christianity to be rather implausible, to put it kindly.


Anyone who uses bigotry, blackmail and religious constructs to argue doesn’t deserve a hearing. As he also puts it, a designer must contain at least as much information as what it creates or designs, and information is inversely related to probability.

So you agree with me that Jason’s argument, that “the idea that we evolved via an unguided mechanism that favors only immediate survival provides a sound basis indeed for assuming our cognitive faculties are reliable,” is not obviously true.

Alvin Plantinga Zings Richard Dawkins

A final example of Dawkinsian thought. Last time, I checked, the Courtier’s Reply was, “You have to know the intricacies of imperial fashion before you can say the emperor is naked. If Plantinga wants to reject the evolutionary explanation he needs to address the more obvious explanation which I expect any supporter of evolution would takenamely that our conscious beliefs arise from our subconscious neurophysiological models of the world.

This is the sort of thing that Plantinga suggests is likely if our brains are the result of evolution by natural selection. It’s the only thing that makes sense. But of course that would be all of his beliefsincluding naturalism itself.