Plantinga - Dennett 1

[demonstrationclass8]

there is a vid of plantinga giving the very same talk at biola, with good vid quality

[TheFlamingPromethean]

Actions speak louder than words:

Why do Christians (who believe in an omnipotent loving father figure) put lightning rods on their churches?

[Avicenna10]

@TheFlamingPromethean

I suspect they would say because God helps those who help themselves.

[rumblefishism]

Did Plantinga retire? He's still on the Notre Dame website. I would have loved to take one of his classes; he sounds like he is a really entertaining professor.

Dennett, on the other hand, would probably bore me to tears.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@dinkipooxa First off, it's Plantinga that's speaking in this clip, not Dennett. Second, I assure you that both Plantinga and Dennett are well aware of the ambiguities of the term 'belief' and the difficulties of a clear definition of the term--they've both published on the topic in peer reviewed journals. But when giving a public lecture you cannot digress into conceptual analysis of every term, even the central ones, since doing so would take up all your time. Some terms need to be granted.

[lukeism2]

i think keeping baby jesus out of the science classrooms is the best idea

[DaveODrisc]

Science and religion are so obviously incompatible that it strikes me as being(more than just a tad)silly to ask if they indeed might be compatible in the first place.

Science endeavours to find truth where as religion(necessarily)recoils from truth.

Plantinga is merely yet another brainwashed theist who likes to give himself a BIG pat on the back for embracing(his own particular)delusion,whilst ignoring any and every bit of incontrovertible evidence that comes his way.

Silly man!

[NicolausNotabene]

What a terrible "debate"! Why pit someone like Dennett up against Plantinga? Dennett is not in Plantinga's league. There are many atheistic philosophers who are far more intellectually rigorous, and who would make far worthier opponents. Dennett is supposed to be a serious philosopher but his arguments are on par with those of Dawkins. It would be nice to hear from the more intellectually sophisticated atheists for once! Well done Plantinga. You demolished an intellectually asthenic opponent.

[NinjaMatie]

Well, I've heard this guy (Plantinga) is a prominent theologian. This debate against Dennett is the only one I can find against anyone I know, and the sound quality is terrible! Come on, I wish he debated Dawkins or Singer :(..............

[SisyphusRedeemed]

He's actually retiring this year and there's going to be a big conference in his honor. Don't think Dawkins or Singer will be there, but there should be a lot of both criticism and praise.

[NicolausNotabene]

@NinjaMatie Dawkins vs. Plantinga??? That would be a nightmare. Dawkins is not a philosopher and his arguments - philosophically speaking - are very tenuous. No, we need a much stronger opponent for Plantinga. Why can't we hear from one of the many, many serious atheistic philosophers?

[awesomewelles90]

@NicolausNotabene I'm a theist but I agree that the popular "new atheists" are intellectually weak. Who would you recommend as a more serious atheist philosopher?

[Beirutsandniqq4]

@awesomewelles90

I would recommend Michael Martin, Theodore Drange, Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, etc.

[dansnikolayevich]

@NinjaMatie

Plantinga is a well respected philosopher, not a theologian. Also I think a Plantigna/Dennett debate is way more interesting then a Dawkins or Singer discussion. Don't get me wrong Singer is a great Philosopher, and Dawkins a great scientist. But Plantinga and Dennett are two of the biggest heavyweights in their field, making for great dialogue. Can't wait to read the book they just coauthored together :p

[zarkoff45]

@NinjaMatie

I responded to Plantinga's argument here:

watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas

I got better sound quality on another presentation of basically the same argument.

[dooyeweerd]

Plantinga's got too many guns for poor Dennett. It was unfair!

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Too many guns? What does that mean? Too many arguments? The win doesn't go to the one who comes up with the most arguments, it goes to the one that comes up with the best. (If you will, it's not the number of guns, but the quality of them that counts.)

[dooyeweerd]

I think you're over-literalising!! Plantinga is too intellectual for Dennett.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Ah, I see.  Well, Plantinga is definitely very intellectual and very smart, but so is Dennett. They both teach at highly respected schools, they're both well published in several different fields of philosophy, they're both 'public intellectuals'...

I certainly don't mind you sharing your opinion, but I have to ask: could you say specifically what it is that makes you think Plantinga wins the debate?

[dooyeweerd]

Absolutely. Plantinga wins since he has a defeator for epistemological naturalism which is yet to be sufficiently replied to by any atheist as yet. His proposal that naturalism is self-refuting holds and nothing Dennett says changes that in the slightest.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Ah, I see again. Well, our disagreement seems to boil down to whether or not we think Plantinga's core argument works (I don't, you do.) This is probably not a debate that is best partaken in 500 word YT comments.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[dooyeweerd]

Well can you tell me who you think has refuted Plantinga's argument? Michael Tooley has a good go in 'Knowledge of God' but I still think Plantinga's argument held. Since that's the best go at a refutation I've come across I'd love to know if there's a better one out there.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I think Dennet did a fine job refuting it. For that matter, I think I did a fine job refuting it in the Q&A (although I expressed myself very poorly): there is evolutionary pressure towards believing truth things for the simple fact that beliefs influence (and often dictate) behavior, and behavior dictates survival. If we believe true things we are on average more likely to survive (and pass on our genes) than if we believe false things.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

'No I didn't' what? Express myself very poorly?

[NicolausNotabene]

I don't see how Dennett refuted it at all. Plantinga's argument is knotty and Dennett didn't deal with any of the serious contentions. As noted above, Dennett was a poor choice in my view. Atheists(personally, I'm an existentialist) can do better. On another note, way to go for having the courage to speak up! Which question did you ask?

[VanDoodah]

Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism is self-defeating. If our logic is to be mistrusted on a biological basis (which it isn't, but nevermind - I'll grant him this premise), then we cannot trust our conclusions. Right? Yes and no. We cannot trust our conclusions, meaning that we cannot trust the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Plantinga's argumet defeats itself.

[rusty2029]

So you are saying that we cannot trust our conclusions about anything so we cannot trust Plantinga's argument?

In other words you are saying that you cannot trust your own conclusions thus your argument defeating yourself and anybody else much less Plantinga? I suggest there is a defeater that I can employ to defeat your defeater as being defeated.

[VanDoodah]

And I cannot trust your conclusion that you cannot trust my conclusion that I cannot trust Plantinga's conclusion.

And so on and so on, ad infinitum.

[ubi2002]

No Plantinga's argument is not self-defeating. I think you are definately proving his point. Given NATURALISM, you cannot trust any claim. This the argument Plantinga is presenting. However, given theism, this dilemma would be solved, as God could have made sure our senses portray reality.

[VanDoodah]

A) Give his initial premise, the rest of his argument collapses.

B) The entire argument is a straw-man argument.

[ubi2002]

Can you prove both A and B? I seriously don't see that those two assertions are true.

[VanDoodah]

Yes, it is self-defeating, because we DID evolve. Evolution is a fact. Therefore, if evolution prevents us from reasoning correctly, then his argument is likely fallacious,

[TooManyTights]

Listen closer... you missed an important point, which explains your mistake.

[blitzel3]

You do realize that if what you said is true ("if evolution prevents us from reasoning correctly"), then logic is unreliable in all instances and thus science is ultimately unstable, right?

There is no reason whatsoever to think evolution prevents us from reasoning correctly and the only reason people claim that is because then the opposing position can't make a case. Funny thing is neither can you. Don't use such a cop out argument.

[manwaring]

Plantinga's argument at it's core is a very fluffy version of the teleological argument. All he's trying to do, without all the fancy analytic philosophical wording. Is say that for a rational human being to evolve there must be teleology in the process.

It's subject to so many flaws, though it is a tribute to the intelligence of Plantinga that such a weak argument has not been torn a part. He truly is the Christian version of Daniel Dennett, making silly arguments using evolution.

[6678]

That's because he's too idiotic to see that one of the most basic texts of philosophy (Descartes Meditations) has already defeated his argument!

Descartes suggested, even as a believer, God could be an evil demon manipulating our cognitive faculties every minute of our existence. There is no reason to believe what we percieve is true if God can manipulate our thoughts at whim.

His argument against epistemology and evolution has no more of a stake than this argument against epistemology and god

[dooyeweerd]

I stongly suggest you try reading Descartes before misrepresenting him. If you bother to read passed Meditation 1 to the other five of them you will notice that Descartes goes on to DEFEAT hyporbolic scepticism and the 'evil demon' hypothesis.

Plantinga is NOT arguing against epistemology. That's just a plain silly suggestion! And he is NOT arguing against the scientific theory of evolution either but against the PHILOSOPHY of naturalism - and does so very well. Atheists fear him!

[6678]

I have read Descartes, and he accomplishes no such thing, but merely makes a faith based assertion that God would not deceive us. Early on he affirmatively regards the fact that god, being the ultimate creator, can manipulate our cognitive faculties at whim. He changes this to an evil demon instead, for fear of being persecuted and accused of blasphemy.

I didn't say Plantinga argued against epistemology, but epistemology and evolution...or epistemology juxtaposed with evolutionary mechanisms.

[6678]

And no, it isn't done well at all. His arguments against naturalism are primarily argumentum ad consequentialisms, but nothing to do with the true/false value assertions of naturalism in and of themselves.

[dooyeweerd]

Sorry but you have not read either Descartes or Plantinga closely enough and are parodying both of them. Plantinga does not fail on such an obvious logical fallacy. His case is that naturalism cannot establish any argument for truth and therefore cannot make truth assertions without self-destructing. He points out its internal inconsistencies. Descartes does not "affirm" a deceiver in the slightest. He raises its epistemic possibility and then demonstrates why this is not the case.

[6678]

And he does this while failing to apply the fact that belief in God has exactly the same epistemological problems as naturalism does considering he can be manipulating our knowledge at whim.

And no, again, you're wrong. Descartes does not successfully defeat his own malicious demon (or god) possibility. Either way, Plantinga's criticism of naturalism bites it's own head off when considering the weaknesses of believing in God and discovering truth.

[dooyeweerd]

That's not true at all. You cannot discredit another person's argument on the basis that you don't like their own epistemology. Whatever Plantinga's own epistemology is it remains a fact that he has issued naturalism a serious blow to it's way of thinking. Of course naturalists who want to avoid his criticisms will try to discredit him somehow but the criticism remains and is yet to be answered and that remains a fact whether you like it or not.

[dooyeweerd]

How does theism suffer the "same" epistemological problems as naturalism exactly? It certainly does not. At least theism has some basis on which to rationally discuss matters - something naturalism fails to acheive. So this is just rhetoric designed to make you feel better about your doomed world-view.

And I think Descartes does give us better reasons for believing in God than believing in the evil demon hypothesis.

[dooyeweerd]

He gives solid a priori reasons why the existence of God is necessary and these defeat the ED hypothesis. Descartes did more in the modern era of philosophy to defeat hyperbolic scepticism than any other single philosopher.

The very fact that you're having this discussion means that you clearly do not hold the ED idea to be very possible at all otherwise you would be philosophically paralysed. At least Descartes established good reasons why. Most just assume.

[polymath7]

"Atheists fear him!"

Is that an admonition or a declaration?

[dooyeweerd]

It was intended as the latter but you could well take it as in the former as well if you like!!

[kommissarw]

@dooyeweerd

Plantinga quoted Behe, multiple times!

Behe does avoid peer review, works for the Discovery Institute, was named in The Wedge document, admitted in court that Intelligent Design suggests God in particular rather than a mystery agent. His work on Irreducable Complexity, has been disproven and even if it were not, does not explain the Redundancy, Unintelligent Design of features from the cellular to the anatomic level.

Plantinga is a tragi-comic figure to this particular Atheist.

[Qohelet888]

I think your comment shows why Behe avoids peer review. =)

No that wasn't a compliment.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Bullshit. Whether Plantiga finds it hard to understand how we could've ended up with reliable faculties given naturalism or not, the chances that we have are 100%. Even if the chances were low beforehand, so what? The chances that all my ancestors met each other and the one in a billion relevant sperm made it are incalculable, yet here I am... Besides which, Plantinga singularly fails to make the case that evolution cannot produce creatures capable of true beliefs.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

The chances were "low"?! "Low"? Then you show you don't even understand Plantinga since you use the phrase "reliable faculties". That's got nothing to do with it. Plantinga would accept they can be reliable in some pragmatic way - of course. The question is about whether naturalism can justify the assumptions it loves to makes about truth and reason. What are the justifications?

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I'm sorry chuckles, it's you who doesn't understand the argument. Have you actually listened to the whole thing? To save you the bother, simply look at the Wikipedia article Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, which handily contains numerous rebuttals as well. As to assumptions, there's a whole heap more involved in attempting to justify true beliefs through Christianity, and to even have this conversation, certain assumptions are unavoidable on either side.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Oh, how precious!! I see. You're an expert on Plantinga after reading what? Oh, A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE!!!! Hahahahahahaha. I suppose one could be a cosmologist after looking up the 'singularities' article on wiki too could they? That admission from you means I cannot take you seriously at all. You don't know shit. Go read 'Knowledge of God' Plantinga's debate with Tooley for starters!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Are you incapable of understanding simple sentences, or do you just misconstrue meanings to suit your purposes habitually? I only offered the Wikipedia article because your comments appeared to show you either haven't listened to the whole debate or don't understand the argument, and you will find a cogent and easy to follow summary of it there. Are you trying for qualification to the Strawman Olympics or something?

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Of course assumptions are required on both sides. But what Plantinga is criticising is naturalism's inability to give us ANY philosophical justification for thinking that truth exists and that reason is a pathway to it. For naturlaism it's much more than an assumption - it's a fideistic axiom!!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Plantinga merely asserts that "magic man done it" as if that is a satisfactory answer to the problems of proving our basic axioms of meaning and truth. He asserts that on a probabalistic basis, theism is more likely to have provided us with reliable means of forming true beliefs, but his arguments in favour of this are hopelessly partial and profoundly unconvincing. If you base your epistemology on God, you have a whole extra bunch of assumption you have to make about him.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

And there you go telling us what Plantinga thinks when we already know you've not read him!! Only if you think you can take down the traditional arguments for the existence of God can you begin asserting believing in God is based on nothing. Arguing for rationality on the basis of theism is consistent. Atheism lacks that.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I'm merely responding to Plantinga says here and your comments, I never claimed to have read his entire output; and if you have, you still seem to have missed the central thrust of this particular argument. The traditional arguments for God could only be taken seriously by someone who already believes in God, I'd wager no-one has ever been converted by them. Rationality under theism is no more consistent than under naturalism because of the arbitrary nature of God.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

It appears your ignorance knows no bounds then. One famous example would be Anthony Flew! The pillar of atheistic philosophy himself was converted AWAY from atheism on the basis of arguments such as the cosmological, teleological and intentionality. But then you'd have to actually read a book to know about the reasons he did and I doubt you're up for that now are you?

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Now I know you're full of it - in a 1984 interview, published in Philosophia Christi, Flew made very clear his distain for traditional arguments for God:

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological,

moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the

scientific forms of teleology?

FLEW: Absolutely.

Flew's alleged conversion, at 81, was to deism and his position seems to have been a little confused..

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

But if you read his book - There IS a God - it is clear that neither the term theist or deist quite summarizes where Flew is. It's true he did not become a Christian but to Habermas, NT Wright and W.L. Craig he has made it clear that he is interested in the philosophical arguments that lead in that specific direction.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Perhaps you could direct me to the sources for your claims about Flew's approbation of philosophical arguments for god other than the teleological, I'm always eager to learn...

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Now, since you've said his view is "confused" let's hear you justify that then. Yet again you're going to tell us from a position of NOT having read the relevent literature eh? I said this was going to become thematic of your approach!! [SIGHS]

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

And how easily I could be defeated the way you think you're doing! All you'd have to do right now is justify the existence of truth and rationality as a means to it on the basis of atheistic origin myths. That's all. Once you do that I'll have no comeback. WHy are you doing everything but that? Mmmmmm?!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd "All you'd have to do right now is justify the existence of truth and rationality as a means to it on the basis of atheistic origin myths." So you agree that there are such things as truth and rationality then? The fact that we agree on this and are capable of communicating that fact is a demonstration that these things exist. I believe that we are here as a result of natural processes, therefore it must be an intrinsic property of nature that truth and rationality can exist.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

If I did not think that truth existed then my very participation in this conversation would be deeply hypocritical so OF COURSE i do. Duh! That is not the question for EITHER you or I. It is the question of justification. Is there a good reason for thinking that truth and reason truly exist? For theist there is, for the atheist - no.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

But of course - your silence is an admission that Plantinga has you atheists right by the testicles!!!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I'd like to ask you why it is that rationality and truth are part of God's nature. Why not irrationality and a tendency to make things up? That would be more convincing to me if we're supposed to have been made in His image (I'll resist the temptation to say especially in your case...).

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

You resisted the temptation to say what you just said? Nice example of your philosophical prowess!!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I note you didn't explain why rationality and truth are part of God's nature...

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

I already told you. To doubt the existence of reason as existing is a self-refuting postition since one would use reason to do so. On that basis its existence is known a priori. One must then ask what its origin is. If its origin is unreason [atheism's 'creation myth'] then there's no reason to think it leads to truth. If its existence lies outside of time in a being who personifies such a quality then it can be trusted.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

And then after all your blustering you say NOTHING about how an atheist would justify thinking that 1) truth exists and 2) that reason can access it. I predict this will become thematic. The chances are high - maybe even '1'!!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I have answered that. Reason and truth are abstractions formed by consciousness, referring to the apparent regularity and reliability of reality as we observe it. It appears that the universe is such that reason and truth are concepts that can coherently exist within it. As to why this is, I have no reason to think that it could be any other way: it is the way it is for certain, and any assessment of other ways the universe could have is pure imagination based on total ignorance.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Hahahaha. Listen to yourself.

1. Reason and truth are abstractions. Mmmm. This says nothing about justifying their actual existence.

2. It appears they exist does not = evidence they do.

3. I have no reason to doubt reason exists!! Hahaha. So having no reason to doubt it becomes your reason for accepting it! And we get told theists use circular logic!!!

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Various theists have argued that the emergence of reason from unreason fatally undermines the notion itself. They have offered various reductios to demonstrate this. We can argue for the objective existence of reason a posteriori and posit that the actual existence of it supposes its existence does not evolve from unreasonable processes. From that we can reasonably infer they come from an infinite source of reason.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Where are you glomming this stuff from? How is this supposed to impress a materialist? This is yet another apologetic argument that only makes sense if you already believe in God. For the rest of us, it is nonsense. You can imagine whatever you like if you feel it makes your life more meaningful, but to me it is an entirely superfluous hypothesis.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Of course it is to you. Because you are ignoring it. There is no good reason for you to think that 'truth' is anything more than a heuristic devise to help us survive and that bugs you so there's no way you're going to listen to it.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I'm supposed to be working, and it's getting late so please excuse me but I'll have to leave off pointing out your unargued assertions, your blatant contradictions of fact, and your misappropriation of Nietzsche and restart my attempts to get you to answer some of my questions tomorrow evening.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

1] On naturalism you have a good and sufficient reason for doubting that your cognitive faculties are reliable.

2] As such you have a defeator for the natural belief that you cognitive faculties are infact reliable.

3] If you have a defeator for your belief that your faculties are reliable then you also have a defeator for each of the beliefs produced by those faculties.

4] That means you have a defeator for your belief in naturalism itself, hence naturalism is self-defeating.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Even if I accepted this argument, it applies equally well to the theist because they have no good and sufficient reason for believing that God's nature is such that it provides a firm basis for reliable cognitive facilities. The fact is that anyone must simply operate on the basis that our cognitive facilities are reliable until proved otherwise. Besides which, 2) is bollocks: you only have a defeater if you can prove cognitive facilities to be wholly unreliable - but how could you?

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers,

You're trying desperately to dodge the bullet but you can't outrun it and you're not Neo either! The fact is that on atheism there is NO good reason to suppose that we have evolved with faculties which reveal what is true. Instead, there's every reason to suppose that reason is just a heuristic devise - there to aid us to survive. A survival tool no more.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Ah, now I see what you're getting at, you have a theists attachment to redefining concepts to include God in them. Truth is an abstraction, a concept created by consciousness. Without minds to recognize it, it wouldn't exist. The products of those minds are no less valuable or remarkable because of we ended up with them through evolution - that would be the genetic fallacy. You seem to want "Truth" though, something independent of minds. Unless you believe in God, that's absurd.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers,

So you are an anti-realist about truth eh? Well that's very interesting. So prior to minds existing there was no such thing? Well then Plantinga's point is even more pertinent and unanswered then. You still have no reason to think that these abstractions are anything more than a survival mechanism do you?

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers,

Also you do not address the issue that if 'truth' is merely abstractions of independent and different minds then where do you manage to call it 'truth' and not 'truths'? To be consistent you ought to be saying there are 'truths' which are abstractions of 'minds' - plural. And if that's so you will have to deal with the criticisms levelled at philosophical pluralism.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd The concept of truth refers to real things and real relationships between them: those things and relationships need not be abstractions, but the concept itself is. Thus there is no difficulty in different minds sharing the same truth.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Your glaringly unsubstantiated claim that there is "NO good reason" to suppose our faculties can track what is true is predicated on this weird definition of truth you seem to be using. This definition, as with Plantinga, implicitly relies on an immaterial, eternal mind, so obviously I think your account of truth is question-begging nonsense. Trying to sell me your "solution" - to imagine God has sorted it all out - is like me trying to buy your house with a million invisible pounds.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers,

Your only criticism of this argument is that you feel the alternative is based on something unfounded [viz. God]. 1] This does not rescue you from THIS argument which remains regardless. 2] This argument is not being used as an independent argument for the existence of God. There are plenty of those but this is not one of them.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd 1) I've already stated that I regard Plantinga's argument as irrelevant because we must assume our faculties are reliable to even begin thinking about whether they are or not. Regardless of whether we might think it unlikely that we should've ended up with reliable faculties, clearly we have them. We have no good reason to think they are so unreliable as to be wholly useless and have ways of discovering our mistakes; thus the argument is irrelevant.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd 2) I never suggested it was an argument for the existence of God, I was pointing out that the supposed solution to potentially unreliable faculties was no solution at all because we have no reliable way of knowing if God actually does guarantee our faculties. The alleged solution merely adds extra, and colossal, assumptions to the alleged problem.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I have answered all your questions and you have ignored all mine. I'll try again: on what basis do you know that God guarantees that our faculties can track truth accurately?

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

"... only if we assume a God who is morally our like can 'truth' and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success." F. Nietzsche

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

BTW - admitting you're a materialist will not get you philosophical kudos you know!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd The objective existence of reason in the way this type of argument mean it is again a concept that is only coherent within a worldview in which an immaterial mind is not nonsense, and is again an entirely superfluous hypothesis.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

I already have. Read his 'There is a God' and you'll see. But it may involve reading more than the everage wiki article I'm afraid so I fear it'll never happen. You'll probably get as far as some atheist online reviewer of it who failed to understand him!!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd I don't need to read anything beyond his own words in the interview I mentioned before to know that he disparaged the ontological and cosmological arguments for God in 1984, If he subsequently changed his mind, well into his 80s, it wouldn't particularly surprise me as he also later said he had lowered his opinion of the teleological argument given new developments in biology he'd learnt about. So what? Your claim about his conversion is still wrong.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers,

Funny how you bring his age into it. But that is just an ad hominem attack and therefore not worthy of replying to! Of course there was a time when he disparaged the traditional theistic arguments - he was atheisms philosophical leading light for decades. But he left atheism behind. Get over it - he has!!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Flew is a deist at most, and from everything I have been able to find, in admittedly brief research, he arrived at this by teleological arguments and found other traditional arguments for God unconvincing. Give me some evidence if you disagree. I mentioned his age because of the controversy regarding his later work, and the fact that he seems to have been persuaded by intelligent design. It's only an ad hominem if you think his advanced age had no effect at all on his thought.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers,

"everything I've been able to find"

Am I supposed to be impressed when all of that arduous study seems to have deliberately AVOIDED reading what Flew himself has had to say about it. Try reading FLEW himself on this. If you dare of course instead of using ad hominem on him which only discredits yourself.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers,

Flew wasn't persuaded by ID!!! But then you would have to ACTUALLY read what he's written to find that out. This was a myth perpetuated by popularist atheist writers such as Dawkins. If you bother reading his book you'll see there's no reason to bring up his age whatsoever. Anyone who knew and read Flew before and after can see it's still the same philosophical giant.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Well I'm not too impressed by the interview I read with him where he praised the teleological argument for God on the apparent basis of a lack of up to date scientific knowledge; as I believe he later acknowledged. It wouldn't matter if next week, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett renounced atheism and new papers by Einstein and Russell were discovered backing them up: that wouldn't make the traditional philosophical arguments even an iota more convincing. Appeal to authority...

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Here's an example from one aspect of reason - meaning.

1. If naturalism is true, then meaning is indeterminate.

2. Meaning is determinate [a presupposition any critic of this syllogism would have to make in order to critique it].

3. Therefore, naturalism is false.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Also, if you think the probability of something happening is '1' in reterospect since it happened then you don't know the first damn thing about probability. In that case we ought to NEVER be suprised at everything and anything. "How do you fell Mr Jones at winning the lottery 3 weeks running?" "Oh, it's no biggy - it happened so the probability was 1!" Hahahahaha - you nonse.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Thank you for your contribution of amusing lack of self-knowledge regarding your expertise on probability to the discussion. My point was merely that the chance that something has actually happened after the event are 100%. Why aren't we surprised at every hand of poker dealt? They're all equally unlikely beforehand, but we still get a hand every time we deal one in spite of the staggering odds of that particular hand.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Of course every SINGLE hand is equal in chance. But you tell the croupier that the chance of you getting a royal flush ten times in a row is 1 because it happened and you know what? They'll STILL kick you out of the casino for cheating!! As you get flung out the day you can cry "But the probability was 1!!!" Hahahahaha

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd Why don't you actually read what I've written and respond that instead of thinking up something ridiculous and then ridiculing that instead? If you can't tell the difference between the odds of something that has already happened being 100% and the odds of something happening before it happens, then I can't be arsed correcting you.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

You are the one who has problems with probability since you cannot see that it can only possible refer to the future. You cannot apply probability AFTER the fact. Probability is a projection of what could happen on the basis of what we know from the past and mathematical odds. For some reason you can't see this. You're talking shit.

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd "You're talking shit" Lovely! Your unwitting irony is making my day :) Probability can refer to things that can happen or things that have happened I think you'll find with even the most cursory research. Plantinga is using the old creationist trick of attributing long odds to things that have already happened.

[dooyeweerd]

@Slabbers

Find me a peer reviewed, professional mathematician who thinks that accounting for an event AFTER it takes place makes the probability of that event to be 1. Just 'one'!

[Slabbers]

@dooyeweerd "Find me a peer reviewed, professional mathematician who thinks that accounting for an event AFTER it takes place makes the probability of that event to be 1." What's that got to do with anything I've said?

[DarkMatter2525]

@dooyeweerd, well, well, well. I'm getting messages from good Christians on the inside saying that CT supporters are planning a flagging campaign, and that they're contacting people they know who work for youtube to try to get me shut down. To protect troll accounts?! Not likely. I can see that this is going to get really, really ugly. And to think, it could've all been over, but NOOOOOOOOO. You couldn't have that. You never learn, do you?

[DarkMatter2525]

@CrateofStolenDirt, yes. The CT story is extensive. I'm currently working on a video about it that will explain.

[shilohwillcome]

idiot.

[jobluz06]

I think VanDoodah is missing the point. Plantinga's argument is concerned with conditional probabilities. Given naturalism and evolution, the probability that we are rational thinkers is very low. Plantinga is saying that we ARE rational, but if naturalism and evolution are true then we would likely not be rational. It's weakness is not a reductio ad absurdum, as VanDoodah suggests, rather it is Plantinga's lack of evidence to show that the probability of R on N and E is low. A least it's fun!

[Hydragurum]

Uhh no; what Plantinga demonstrates is that the reliance we have on our faculties is for all practical purposes pragmiatically circular; we cannot doubt those faculties by assuming they're reliable to then doubt them. His point is that on the naturalistic way of looking at things, we HAVE a reason to doubt the reliability of those faculties in which case naturalism demonstrates itself to be self defeating given its account for those faculties. His argument is not self defeating; naturalism is.

[Hydragurum]

And secondly, yes if man is simply a physical substance then we do have reason to doubt logical inference. The brain of man is an individual, particular thing that is continually changing in its constitution. As such the thought processes and operations of the brain must be determined by what is true of those characteristics; they will not manifest the opposite qualities of modal necessity, universality, and immutability characteristic of the laws of logic. You thus have no basis for using logic

[robotaholic]

Dennett FTW!

[RationalEmotive]

Dennett for the win!

[happysplodie]

You might want to put these in a playlist. Thanks for posting anyway :-)

-H

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I do have them in a playlist. At least, i think I do. I tried to put them in a playlist, but I've never done a playlist before, so maybe I screwed it up somehow.

[brainouty]

Rather ironic, that the speaker's name is Alvin Plantinga. :)

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Sorry, I don't quite get the irony. Is it the 'plant' part?

[brainouty]

Sisyphus, look up "ontological argument" and "Plantinga". 1000 years ago. Then you will smile. :)

[SisyphusRedeemed]

The only 'Plantinga' I find in association with 'ontololgoical argument' is the same Alvin Plantinga who is speaking here. He made a very famous version of the ontological argument in the 70's. Is it possible you have confused him with the person who invented the ontological argument (St. Anselm)?

[brainouty]

Okay, I was being too cute. Plantinga replanting Anselm. :)

[drsuessre14]

Thanks for posting this!

[mikecampochiaro]

Thanks for posting this.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

You're welcome. I figured you would enjoy this.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

The religious compatibalists can argue that a specific religion could be imagined which would be compatible with specific scientific findings.

But "a religion" being compatible with "a scientific finding" is not the same as the lack of compatibility between science as a practice and religion as a source of belief. There could hardly be two more incompatible things.

A religion which happens to believe true things is like a "psychic" who happens to guess correctly.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Apt methphor, but I would make one pedantic correction: religions don't 'believe' things, individual member of reliigons do.

[Cafeeine]

You need to rename #6 and #10, they've got wrong numbering

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thanks for the heads up. I think I've got it straightened out now.

[CousinoMacul]

Plantinga is full of apologistic **it! The reason Darwin's proposal of natural selection was so revolutionary was precisely because NS is a mechanism that's teleologically unguided.

I'm not sure that I'll be able to get to all the videos this morning, but I can't wait to hear Dennet's response to this.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Dennett's response is rather barbed. He makes good points, but he's not exactly respectful. I'll have it up soon.

[82abhilash]

I agree teleology must only be applied to understand the nature of man. One agent we knows for sure teleologically guides his behavior and thereby shapes the world.

[emmelawrence]

It's very refreshing that you present topics in such a logical manner; fair and unbiased reasoning has truly become a rarity in this age of intolerance and fundamentalism, when so many (my fellow Christians in some cases) have become arrogant enough to believe they know with absolute certainty the will of God in all circumstances, despite the fact that we cannot take every word of the Bible literally (even if we did, it still doesn't provide literal answers to some of today's problems).

[emmelawrence]

I would like to issue a preemptive apology for the rest of my rant (I get frustrated c/ uneducated and closed-minded people)

That being said, I've never understood the true premise for many Christians adhering to exact young earth creationism. How do we know that each "day" in the story of Biblical creation was not meant figuratively? How does evolution actually go against Biblical principles? Are people so narrow-minded that they believe God had to follow each element of the story precisely?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Sounds like a good rant to me. If you put it in a video, I'd definitely watch it, and maybe even subscribe.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback. I also appreciate your measured approach to the text.