What exactly is Pantinga's argument against naturalism? If you could help me break it down more simply it would be appreciated. It mostly seemed like hand waving to me.
I get kind of lost in Plantinga's "propositions 'A' and 'Q' defeating 'R'" type talk. Is this very common in this type of philosophical discourse? It seems to me like it just obscures the point he's trying to make.
As far as I can tell it just breaks down to the fact that he doesn't understand why our beliefs should track reality. Is this the gist?
Sadly it is rather common, not just for Plantinga, but for many analytically trained philosophers, and it can be rather alienating if you're not used to it. It can be easier if you can read it, rather than just hearing it.
I don't think you've quite got the gist. I take Plantinga's basic point to be that natural selection selects for surviving-behavior, not true beliefs, and there is no reason to think that the later would come along with the prior.
Yeah, that's his point, but AHBritton probably has the counterargument in mind when he says Plantinga doesn't understand why our beliefs should track reality.
Because that's basically what it's all about. If Plantinga had any understanding of this, he'd realize that the kinds of "false, but useful" beliefs he proposes are exponentially unlikely to create a coherent system of ideas that's useful for making predictions. True beliefs have the advantage of not having to fight reality.
It makes me happy to see someone defending Dawkins as a philosopher. He is, to an extant polemic, and that puts people off, but his platform is increasing people's awareness of science. I enjoyed your question, but it seemed like one of maybe 10 or so times Plantinga needed to be hand shown exactly how Dennett responded to his arguments. This made it rather frustrating for me to hear this debate, even though I sat through it all.
This is off topic, but Dawkins makes a horrible philosopher. I won't comment on the subject on whether he's a deep thinker, I think he has shown he is. However, this is only applicable to his native field of interest -- biology.
I feel more comfortable hearing Dennett speak on the subject of religion in the context of philosophy.
I've heard more than one person say Dawkins is a poor philosopher, but I've never heard anyone say why they think so, other than (1) he's not trained as a philosopher or (2) simply that they disagreed with his conclusions, neither of which are good arguments. Can you tell me specifically why you think he's a poor philosopher?
So you've never heard of St. Thomas? Or Michael Behe? Or Alvin Plantinga for that matter?
"Didn't know you liked poor philosophy"
You've made no argument, provided no evidence for your claims, made bald assertions and ad hominem attacks, and I am the one who likes poor philosophy? All I've done is ask you to back up the rather ambitious claims you've made, and you're evading.
"the vast majority of thinkers today DO NOT take him seriously."
Do you have a citation for this? Was there a poll of 'thinkers' who were asked their opinion on Dawkins? Or are you just assuming?
"he uses evolution as an argument against God."
Yeah, because it demolishes one of the best arguments for God, the biological argument from design. Once you undermine the other arguments (which Dawkins at least attempts to do) then you've got a strong case against God. Makes perfect sense to me.
But my basic question still stands: simply saying 'you sound like Dawkins and Dawkins makes bad arguments' is no response to happyslopide's question. If you think his point is poor then say why it's poor; pointing out that it's 'Dawkins-esque' is neither here nor there.
Moreover, there are no special criteria for being a theologian, philosopher or deep-thinker. Your claim that Dawkins is not these things is nothing more than ad hominem.
First off, who says that Dennett is parroting Dawkins, as opposed to simply making the same point independently? Second, what's wrong with parroting Dawkins, even if he is? If Dawkins makes a good point, then he should be echoed.
It's a weak argument based on an assumption that god did stuff way back in the day that he doesn't do now. More comforting than saying 'I don't know' I guess...
It's like that spiritual person that says, I don't like organized religion, I accept all science, but I believe god started the universe. Why believe? Cause I just do. WHY?!
Why is god in the argument? What's the point in defending/reconciling the bronze age myths with modern science?
I obviously disagree with him, but I can't agree with your characterization of him. If you look at some of his non-religious work, for example, it's quite clear what a bright man he is. It's just a shame that so much of his prodigious intellect is wasted in defense of a mistaken doctrine. But then again, his doing that keeps the rest of us honest, I suppose.
I was recently introduced to Dennett, (Dawkins has a YouTube channel called "the four horsemen" where Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens sit down for a chat).
I haven't decided if I like him yet, If you have read any of his books, what did you think?
I've read "Breaking the Spell" (his book on religion), "Elbow Room" (his book on free will) and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (his book on evolution.) I enjoyed all of them. He's an engaging and clear writer. I disgree with a lot of what he says (especially in "Elbow Room"), but I enjoy the process of disagreeing, so it's still good.
Yeah, I drove up to Chicago pretty much just for that session. There were a few other talks I wanted to see (and some old friends), but that was really the main event for me.
I was at the Kurzweil talk at the Eastern last year, too. I asked him a question as well (on behalf of John Searle). I also saw the Putnam talk, and the President's lecture from Appiah. It would have been a good conference overall... had it not been for the fact that I was on the job market, which is always a miserable experience.
So you were at this debate? You lucky guy! Thanks for posting the audio. I'd love to hear more debates between Plantinga and his peers. When you write below that you asked a question on behalf of John Searle, are you a student working with him? I have listened to Searle's lectures for the Teaching company and just loved them. I wish Searle would do more, especially on a broader range of topics since he is so lucid. I'd love to hear his history of philosophy, or great ideas of philosophy.
I was at the Plantinga/Dennett debate, but the 'question on behalf of John Searle' was in reference to a talk by Ray Kurzweil at the Eastern APA in '07. And no, I was not a student of Searle's, but I know his stuff reasonably well (I've also listened to his TTC lectures, and read some of his books). Although Searle has only done the one lecture series for TTC, they do have a good great ideas in philosophy series.
Dennett's argument seems to be summed up thusly - I don't like belief in God.
Mylth 1 year ago
TheIrrationalAtheist,
What exactly is Pantinga's argument against naturalism? If you could help me break it down more simply it would be appreciated. It mostly seemed like hand waving to me.
AHBritton 2 years ago
SisyphusRedeemed,
I get kind of lost in Plantinga's "propositions 'A' and 'Q' defeating 'R'" type talk. Is this very common in this type of philosophical discourse? It seems to me like it just obscures the point he's trying to make.
As far as I can tell it just breaks down to the fact that he doesn't understand why our beliefs should track reality. Is this the gist?
AHBritton 2 years ago
Sadly it is rather common, not just for Plantinga, but for many analytically trained philosophers, and it can be rather alienating if you're not used to it. It can be easier if you can read it, rather than just hearing it.
I don't think you've quite got the gist. I take Plantinga's basic point to be that natural selection selects for surviving-behavior, not true beliefs, and there is no reason to think that the later would come along with the prior.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Yeah, that's his point, but AHBritton probably has the counterargument in mind when he says Plantinga doesn't understand why our beliefs should track reality.
Because that's basically what it's all about. If Plantinga had any understanding of this, he'd realize that the kinds of "false, but useful" beliefs he proposes are exponentially unlikely to create a coherent system of ideas that's useful for making predictions. True beliefs have the advantage of not having to fight reality.
Gnomefro 2 years ago
It makes me happy to see someone defending Dawkins as a philosopher. He is, to an extant polemic, and that puts people off, but his platform is increasing people's awareness of science. I enjoyed your question, but it seemed like one of maybe 10 or so times Plantinga needed to be hand shown exactly how Dennett responded to his arguments. This made it rather frustrating for me to hear this debate, even though I sat through it all.
jkllkj12345 2 years ago
Clear win for Dennett. I'm so glad we got people like him to keep us sane. He deserves to go to heaven! ;)
julebakst 2 years ago
This is off topic, but Dawkins makes a horrible philosopher. I won't comment on the subject on whether he's a deep thinker, I think he has shown he is. However, this is only applicable to his native field of interest -- biology.
I feel more comfortable hearing Dennett speak on the subject of religion in the context of philosophy.
Aquam9n 2 years ago
I've heard more than one person say Dawkins is a poor philosopher, but I've never heard anyone say why they think so, other than (1) he's not trained as a philosopher or (2) simply that they disagreed with his conclusions, neither of which are good arguments. Can you tell me specifically why you think he's a poor philosopher?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
how much material is missing from the end of the 11th video and the beggining of the 12th? And thanks for posting
disofchrist 2 years ago
I think there was about a minute, or maybe a minute and a half. I tried to get the whole thing, but technical complications being what they are...
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
"I don't know of any theist who uses this"
So you've never heard of St. Thomas? Or Michael Behe? Or Alvin Plantinga for that matter?
"Didn't know you liked poor philosophy"
You've made no argument, provided no evidence for your claims, made bald assertions and ad hominem attacks, and I am the one who likes poor philosophy? All I've done is ask you to back up the rather ambitious claims you've made, and you're evading.
"don't bother responding"
Sorry, never was very good at following orders.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
Man, TheIrrationalAtheist is kind of a jerk... maybe that's what he means by "thinker"
AHBritton 2 years ago
"the vast majority of thinkers today DO NOT take him seriously."
Do you have a citation for this? Was there a poll of 'thinkers' who were asked their opinion on Dawkins? Or are you just assuming?
"he uses evolution as an argument against God."
Yeah, because it demolishes one of the best arguments for God, the biological argument from design. Once you undermine the other arguments (which Dawkins at least attempts to do) then you've got a strong case against God. Makes perfect sense to me.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
Ah, okay, sorry I missed that part of the thread.
But my basic question still stands: simply saying 'you sound like Dawkins and Dawkins makes bad arguments' is no response to happyslopide's question. If you think his point is poor then say why it's poor; pointing out that it's 'Dawkins-esque' is neither here nor there.
Moreover, there are no special criteria for being a theologian, philosopher or deep-thinker. Your claim that Dawkins is not these things is nothing more than ad hominem.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
First off, who says that Dennett is parroting Dawkins, as opposed to simply making the same point independently? Second, what's wrong with parroting Dawkins, even if he is? If Dawkins makes a good point, then he should be echoed.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
It's a weak argument based on an assumption that god did stuff way back in the day that he doesn't do now. More comforting than saying 'I don't know' I guess...
It's like that spiritual person that says, I don't like organized religion, I accept all science, but I believe god started the universe. Why believe? Cause I just do. WHY?!
Why is god in the argument? What's the point in defending/reconciling the bronze age myths with modern science?
happysplodie 3 years ago
I obviously disagree with him, but I can't agree with your characterization of him. If you look at some of his non-religious work, for example, it's quite clear what a bright man he is. It's just a shame that so much of his prodigious intellect is wasted in defense of a mistaken doctrine. But then again, his doing that keeps the rest of us honest, I suppose.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
I was recently introduced to Dennett, (Dawkins has a YouTube channel called "the four horsemen" where Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens sit down for a chat).
I haven't decided if I like him yet, If you have read any of his books, what did you think?
angelwhite 3 years ago
I've read "Breaking the Spell" (his book on religion), "Elbow Room" (his book on free will) and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (his book on evolution.) I enjoyed all of them. He's an engaging and clear writer. I disgree with a lot of what he says (especially in "Elbow Room"), but I enjoy the process of disagreeing, so it's still good.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
You were there? Lucky bastard. :-P
LennyBound 3 years ago
Yeah, I drove up to Chicago pretty much just for that session. There were a few other talks I wanted to see (and some old friends), but that was really the main event for me.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
I went to the Eastern Division meeting last year. I saw Ray Kurtzweil, Ned Block, Hilary Putnam, and Bas van Fraassen.
I thought maybe Dennett would be there (since we works at Tufts) but he wasn't.
LennyBound 3 years ago
I was at the Kurzweil talk at the Eastern last year, too. I asked him a question as well (on behalf of John Searle). I also saw the Putnam talk, and the President's lecture from Appiah. It would have been a good conference overall... had it not been for the fact that I was on the job market, which is always a miserable experience.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
I'm still in undergrad, and so I still have some time before I have to look around for a philosophy job.
Unless, of course, I don't get into grad school... in which case I'll be looking for a job waiting tables.
LennyBound 3 years ago
So you were at this debate? You lucky guy! Thanks for posting the audio. I'd love to hear more debates between Plantinga and his peers. When you write below that you asked a question on behalf of John Searle, are you a student working with him? I have listened to Searle's lectures for the Teaching company and just loved them. I wish Searle would do more, especially on a broader range of topics since he is so lucid. I'd love to hear his history of philosophy, or great ideas of philosophy.
emailgarbage20 3 years ago
I was at the Plantinga/Dennett debate, but the 'question on behalf of John Searle' was in reference to a talk by Ray Kurzweil at the Eastern APA in '07. And no, I was not a student of Searle's, but I know his stuff reasonably well (I've also listened to his TTC lectures, and read some of his books). Although Searle has only done the one lecture series for TTC, they do have a good great ideas in philosophy series.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago