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: Kishura Mujas
Country: Kazakhstan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 5 December 2018
Pages: 125
PDF File Size: 9.19 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.99 Mb
ISBN: 675-2-43073-911-4
Downloads: 4121
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meztiktilar

So I keep reading religious literature, in the increasingly vain hope that I will someday find some germ of intellectual respectability underlying the whole thing.

I seriously doubt that horses consistently confuse rustling for predators and run away. So suppose we take Dawkins to be complaining that theism doesn’t offer an explanation of mind. Egged on by his dzwkins, it is as if he has become a caricature of his own public persona.

Dawkins, towards the end of The God Delusionendorses a certain limited scepticism. I have also noticed that you have not parroted his argument per se. Again, the xlvin of religion presents a Hobson’s choice for Jason’s argument: Why don’t you come out and say what point of view you really mean.

Science or naturalism? The contradictions of Richard Dawkins

But the God described in the Bible is a complex entity: They will be more reliable when directly relating to the environmental conditions in which they evolved. These people are indeed delusional.

This is the sort of thing that Plantinga suggests is likely if our brains are the result of evolution by natural selection. Our observations about rocks and animals must have at least some correlation with reality for us to survive. He hurts my brain, but he has some unique points confuion the atheists.


John Pieret, It is not remotely plausible that our survival and reproductive success is not intimately related to the reliability of our perception and understanding of our environment. But, in Plantingas eyes, plantinya Evolution and Naturalism leads logically to the conclusion that our faculties are not reliable.

But suppose God is a numbskull–suppose God frequently mistakes alvln stumps for bears, or fire trucks for dragons. Dwkins, we don’t experience reality in it’s totality; we experience the limited portion of reality that is amenable to our senses and reason a “dream world” as Plantinga calls it.

I now remember why I retired from these forums — to avoid wasting time engaging overly confident peanuts like you.

Steven Weinberg reviews The God Delusion. So to claim that what we want or what we need is an ultimate explanation of mind is, once more, just to beg the question against theism. And please be sure to let us all know when those “replicating organic compounds” are finally found. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true – in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God – but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.

Our ability to know the nature of god, or gods is not very good.

The Dawkins Confusion – by Alvin Plantinga | Apologetics

Your hypothesis that humans have some “special” interaction with our environment that make us depend more crucially on perception and cognition than other successful reproducers is still unevidenced. At an earlier time, the fine-tuning had to be even more remarkable. I have to agree it’s clnfusion the best book on atheism I’ve read.


Rawkins in reality, if materialists were right, then they lavin even help what they believe including their belief in materialism! A perception of supernatural causation, that Jason and you? So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed. John Pieret, I’ve done my best to explain the philosophical problem that Plantinga is posing, and the difficulties involved with selection as a solution to it, that everyone else seems to at least comprehend.

The Dawkins Confusion – Plantinga responds «

We’re not searching for intellectual respectability in religion; we’re pointing out its absence in the face of claims to the contrary from theists. Writing a letter to our congressman about the rising cost of doing business in your state is not a natural talent. A list of people who achieved great things by laying aside supernaturalism and working out natural solutions to difficult problems hardly contradicts me.

Who is the audience and where do they reside? I All of you intelligent people must get tired of the arrogance and evident childish peevishness of people like this blogger me, that do nothing to advance the cause of truth especially when I post a comment on a nearly five-year-old thread J. I heard basically the same argument maybe even referenced to Plantinga from the fundy side in a “Does God Exist?