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

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    According to Plantinga, 'properly basic beliefs' justify only theism not different people holding different beliefs.
    Source?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Carrikature
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    I'm not really clear exactly what you mean by "...his argument for the necessity design..."

    Could you cite for us "Plantinga's Theory of Warrant and Proper Belief", please?

    {Since that is what you are arguing against, it would seem to be fairly essential that we know just what that theory is}
    Lets' start here . . . notice the emphasis on 'design.'

    Originally posted by http://hadeelnaeem.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/warrant-and-proper-fucntion/
    "According to the central and paradigmatic core of our notion of warrant (so I say) a belief B has warrant for you if and only if (1) the cognitive faculties involved in the production of B are functioning properly . . . (2) your cognitive environment is suciently similar to the one for which your cognitive faculties are designed; (3) . . . the design plan governing the production of the belief in question involves, as purpose or function, the production of true beliefs . . .; and (4) the design plan is a good one: that is, there is a high statistical or objective probability that a belief produced in accordance with the relevant segment of the design plan in that sort of environment is true." (Plantinga 1993)

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post

    AFAIK Plantinga rejects classical foundationalism, and holds that belief in God can be for some people a properly basic belief. (see his article in Philosophy or Religion)
    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. Please give a more complete citation of Plantinga and how this fits in context of a 'properly basic belief.'

    I will respond more, in particular from Knowledge of God By Alvin Plantinga, Michael Tooley.

    Here is an interesting citation form a summary of Plantinga's “Religious Belief as ‘Properly Basic"

    Originally posted by http://www.unc.edu/~theis/phil32/plantinga.html

    Plantinga’s “Religious Belief as ‘Properly Basic” is a very rich paper. He is attempting to defend a radical position on which it can be reasonable to believe in God even in the absence of argument or evidence. But in providing this defense, Plantinga touches on a broad range of topics. As a result of this breadth, many students have a hard time understanding Plantinga. On an initial reading it can be very hard to see how the different pieces of Plantinga’s paper fit together.
    Plantinga spends considerable time writing books, articles, interviews and debates defending his argument for which he apparently claims it is 'reasonable to believe in God even in the absence of argument or evidence, . . . I will to a certain extent focus on the slippery view Plantinga takes in his 'arguments.'
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-18-2014, 04:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Read my posts, Plantinga's quotes are in "quotation marks" including an abstract of one of his papers. Again, please cite specifically where this is not true.

    Please cite Plantinga where anything I wrote and cited that is not true.
    My apologies (in part):

    Your first post does cite Plantinga, in response to Michael Ruse saying he was an advocate of intelligent design. Plantinga says that the science alone can't tell us whether evolution was unguided or not.
    Originally posted by Plantinga
    But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't.
    Your second post contains a two sentence quote of Plantinga, the rest is from a review of a recent book he's put out. In the quote Plantinga rejects the probabilistic argument approach to recognising design.

    Your third post contains a few fragmentary quotes, not even one whole sentence, that's all.

    Your post #8 has no link, but appears to be someone's summary of Plantinga's thought.


    None of the above citations give us any real handle on what Plantinga might have to say about your thesis:

    Originally posted by shunyadragon
    One of the keystones of Plantinga's Theory of Warrant and 'Proper Belief' is his argument for the necessity design and against Philosophical Naturalism.

    I'm not really clear exactly what you mean by "...his argument for the necessity design..."

    Could you cite for us "Plantinga's Theory of Warrant and Proper Belief", please?

    {Since that is what you are arguing against, it would seem to be fairly essential that we know just what that theory is}



    AFAIK Plantinga rejects classical foundationalism, and holds that belief in God can be for some people a properly basic belief. (see his article in Philosophy or Religion)

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    So far in this thread NONE of your references are direct citations of Plantinga. I suspect you're arguing against a strawman, composed of your muddled misconceptions of what you conceive Plantinga thinks, rather than what he actually says.
    Read my posts, Plantinga's quotes are in "quotation marks" including an abstract of one of his papers. Again, please cite specifically where this is not true.

    Please cite Plantinga where anything I wrote and cited that is not true.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-18-2014, 06:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    ALL my references cite Plantinga verbatim, and Thoughtful Christianity is sympathetic to Plantinga. I'm sorry for the minor mistake. If you see the quotes by Plantinga in error, please bring it to my attention. I will cite Plantinga more.
    So far in this thread NONE of your references are direct citations of Plantinga. I suspect you're arguing against a strawman, composed of your muddled misconceptions of what you conceive Plantinga thinks, rather than what he actually says.

    Leave a comment:


  • NormATive
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Personally I strongly object to the concept of 'Intelligent Design,' because it tends to portray God as an engineer from an anthropomorphic human perspective. 'God is a Creator not an engineer nor designer.'
    As a former Theist, I can see your point. Ironically, as a Theist, I fully embraced ID. I thought it made Christianity more "believable."

    NORM

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    There is intelligent design. Worst case being, nothingness to matter-space-time order, non-life to life, life to intelligences to intelligent design. Even with this, this depicts an order. Nothingness to intelligent design. Unless you are going to argue none of this is intelligent.
    This is your belief and not coherent argument for 'Intelligent Design.' Intelligence is basically a human quality, that we apply to ourselves when compared to other animals, and if God exists, it is a part of Creation and not likely a limiting attribute of God. There is evidence that there was ever philosophical nothingness. By the present evidence the Natural existence is orderly based on Natural Laws.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    Thoughtful Christianity is NOT Alvin Plantinga's site. You're misrepresenting him.

    Please start your argument by citing what Plantinga actually says, rather than secondary sources. You get rather tetchy when people 'mis-quote' you, or don't 'accurately' cite your posts in discussions... ... you should do the same for Plantinga.
    Proper Function Account of Warrant by Alvin Plantinga

    Abstract

    Plantinga says that sufficient warrant, together with true belief, yields knowledge, and he holds that warrant is to be understood primarily in terms of proper function. Plantinga maintains that there is a design plan for various parts of our cognitive apparatus, and that a belief has warrant only when our cognitive equipment to be functioning as it was designed to function. This account implies that the fundamental kind of warrant is that which attaches to beliefs. I argue to the contrary that the fundamental kind of warrant attaches to propositions, and that an implication of this fact is that proper function is not relevant at all to the concept of warrant. [/quote]

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
39 responses
230 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
305 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X