Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Plantinga's argument for Design.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The problem of unsubstantiated probability in the following represents an interesting problem with Plantinga's argument against Naturalism.

    Originally posted by http://www.indiana.edu/~scotus/files/House_Divided.pdf

    Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating. Let R denote the thesis that our basic cognitive faculties are mostly reliable, and EN the thesis that human beings and their cognitive faculties arose by means of entirely natural processes of the kind posited by current evolutionary biology, processes unguided and undesigned by God or any other supernatural being. The probability of R on EN, Plantinga plausibly maintains, is inscrutable by us. Since EN is relevant to the truth of R, the inscrutability of R on EN gives the adherent of EN a reason to withhold belief in R: EN is evidence, for the naturalist, that calls into question his belief in R. Withholding belief in R clearly would have disastrous implications for one's beliefs, as its truth underpins the warrant for all our other beliefs.Worse still, Plantinga contends, there is no reasonable means of escaping this predicament once one is mired in it.

    Since the argument provides a defeater for all the naturalist's beliefs, he is left with nothing that might enable him to defeat the defeater. Hume's game of
    backgammon beckons.
    Serious question here; How does Plantinga objectively determine that the probability is 'Inscrutable?'

    I need a better answer then 'plausibly maintains.'
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-18-2014, 08:22 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      On the EEAN, and Plantinga's reasoning for probabilities:

      http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philo...m_defeated.pdf

      See page 4 onwards, and especially page 11.


      If you just googled 'plantinga evolutionary argument against naturalism pdf' you could find this, Shunya....

      It's, umm, odd that you don't already have this if you're setting out to show Plantinga wrong. In that paper he does an extensive analysis of the possible scenarios,

      Also, do you know what 'inscrutable' means?
      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I have a problem with this selective slippery view of how a properly basic belief applies. If Plantinga '. . . holds that belief in God belief in God can be for some people a properly basic belief,' and not for everyone. You cited a book as a reference, which is something like arguing by web link.
        Yes, because I have the book. You might be able to find a copy in a public library - where I live there aren't any. The book has an actual paper by Plantinga, written by Plantinga himself, not 'summaries' and soundbite quotes....

        Plantinga's ideas are not something that can be understood in a simple five sentence quote, BTW. It's a substantial argument developed over a whole paper (itself drawn from two other papers), and understanding it requires some grasp of background concepts as well.



        Originally posted by Shunyadragon
        Please give a more complete citation of Plantinga and how this fits in context of a 'properly basic belief.'

        Actually, that's your job. You are arguing against what you have called "Plantinga's Theory of Warrant and 'Proper Belief'". I have a suspicion that you are unfamiliar with what Plantinga himself has to say about that, and are going by second-hand sources. It's dishonest, foolish and arrogant to think that you have grasped the complexities of thought and reasoning of a respected professional from a few selected quotes in other contexts.


        That's why I asked you to provide his theory. Which you haven't - if you had something substantial to hand that you were basing this thread off, you would have already cited it. Now you're diverting into sidetracks about other arguments - the EEAN.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I have a problem with this selective slippery view of how a properly basic belief applies. If Plantinga '. . . holds that belief in God belief in God can be for some people a properly basic belief,' and not for everyone.'
          Different people hold different properly basic beliefs. So what? There's nothing selective or slippery about it.
          I'm not here anymore.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            Different people hold different properly basic beliefs. So what? There's nothing selective or slippery about it.
            According to Plantinga, 'properly basic beliefs' justify only theism not different people holding different beliefs. Actually from what I read in the past he considers 'sin' to be the cause of 'some' people not holding 'properly basic beliefs.'

            In your view is his 'properly basic beliefs,' justifying different people holding different beliefs?
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              According to Plantinga, 'properly basic beliefs' justify only theism not different people holding different beliefs.
              Source?
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                On the EEAN, and Plantinga's reasoning for probabilities:

                http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philo...m_defeated.pdf

                See page 4 onwards, and especially page 11.


                If you just googled 'plantinga evolutionary argument against naturalism pdf' you could find this, Shunya....

                It's, umm, odd that you don't already have this if you're setting out to show Plantinga wrong. In that paper he does an extensive analysis of the possible scenarios,
                I have read this, and find it terribly wanting, terribly simplistic selfish logic, and lacking in any reasonably knowledge of the science of evolution and human behavior.

                Also, do you know what 'inscrutable' means?
                It's odd that Plantinga would make this argument against Naturalism in this way when he is apparently clueless concerning the science of evolution.

                I know what 'inscrutable means, and the best argument is that it is 'inscrutable' to determine the probability for any possible case in an attempt to justify any possible belief system considering Methodological Naturalism which has a reasonable explanation for the evolution of human behavior. If Plantinga's proposing that, because science does not the complete answer, therefore 'design' is justified, he is in trouble.

                I will cite other philosophers and scientist who ask the same question I am asking.

                The bottom line is I am still waiting for an adequate 'objective' explanation that will pass muster in science concerning Plantinga's argument for 'design'
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-18-2014, 10:58 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Serious question here; How does Plantinga objectively determine that the probability is 'Inscrutable?']
                  You could actually try reading his works and not just rely on selected quotes by reviewers.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    Source?
                    Plantinga's whole argument from beginning to end. His purpose is to justify theism as the 'properly basic belief.'
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Actually from what I read in the past he considers 'sin' to be the cause of 'some' people not holding 'properly basic beliefs.'
                      Source?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        You could actually try reading his works and not just rely on selected quotes by reviewers.
                        I have read his works. The reviewers I will cite are well qualified, and better qualified then I, to express their objections. My objections are specific to my knowledge of geology and evolution. Plantinga is clueless about the science of evolution.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          According to Plantinga, 'properly basic beliefs' justify only theism not different people holding different beliefs. Actually from what I read in the past he considers 'sin' to be the cause of 'some' people not holding 'properly basic beliefs.'
                          You should back this up with something. As best I can tell, his concept of PBB only seeks to justify theism as one such belief not the only such. Of course, one wouldn't argue that some people don't hold properly basic beliefs. Rather, one would argue that some of those beliefs are wrong due to sin.


                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          In your view is his 'properly basic beliefs,' justifying different people holding different beliefs?
                          It would have to.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I have read his works. The reviewers I will cite are well qualified, and better qualified then I, to express their objections. My objections are specific to my knowledge of geology and evolution. Plantinga is clueless about the science of evolution.
                            Pro-tip: Cite the author not the reviewer.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              Source?
                              Have you read Plantinga? I will provide a source, but first are you aware of his explanation of Reformed Epistemology and the explanation why some people do not believe when they should believe.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                Pro-tip: Cite the author not the reviewer.
                                I have cited Plantinga, and I will cite him more. The reviewers I WILL CITE are very qualified.

                                Pro-tip: Cite qualified sources on all sides of an argument. DO NOT rely on philosophers to understand evolution unless they provide appropriate academic sources.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 09-21-2023, 12:41 PM
                                35 responses
                                188 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 09-01-2023, 06:13 PM
                                77 responses
                                643 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by JimL, 08-13-2023, 08:16 PM
                                62 responses
                                392 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by whag, 08-12-2023, 12:20 PM
                                69 responses
                                437 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 08-09-2023, 06:39 PM
                                425 responses
                                2,281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X