@ChiefRepublic You don't seem to have understood Plantinga's argument if you think it's an argument for the existence of God. His conclusion is simply that someone who accepts both naturalism and evolution acquires a defeater for his belief that his cognitive faculties are reliable, and so also acquires a defeater for all the beliefs produced by his cognitive faculties including his belief in naturalism.
@1986mbh Thank you for your courteous response. But I don't like beating around the bush. His argument doesn't explicitly state that it is a proof of God. But who are we kidding, he is arguing that evolution could not have occured unguided. And as science student his callous disregard for scientific principles irks me.
@ChiefRepublic Yes I agree, the EEAN is part of a package of arguments seeking to undermine naturalism and thus ultimately to lend weight to theism. I don't think the aim of the argument is to show that evolution couldn't have occurred unguided, though.
What Plantinga is claiming, rather, is that a naturalist is very likely committed to materialism with respect to human beings (and indeed, this is the case for many prominent naturalist philosophers of mind: e.g. Daniel Dennett, Paul & Patricia Churchland, etc).
If one holds that mental states are epiphenomena (as the above thinkers do), i.e. they play no causal role in accounting for human behaviour, then it follows that the beliefs we hold have a merely arbitrary relation to the neurophysiological structures which give rise to them. If that is the case, then natural selection cannot be expected to select for true belief, but merely adaptive neurophysiology--the two having no necessary connection.
@1986mbh That's a gross bastardisation of the actual science. Why does a bird fly off when it senses a predator? The common notion would be to say that it has evolved to perform this action when it receives sensory input to the brain identifying a threat. But that is actually wrong. Plantinga takes this layman understanding and applies it to not only natural selection but to cognitive neuro science. It's akin to applying Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics.
@1986mbh The development of a central hub (brain) that collects data from external stimuli. This information goes through a complex process, where more often than not, the "better safe than sorry" option is chosen. The bird doesn't simply identify predator and automatically flee. This is not say that the genetic makeup of, say, a swallow doesn't predetermine its likelihood of fleeing extremely probable.
@1986mbh Plantinga claims that we evolved cognitive faculties that produce beliefs geared towards survival rather than beliefs. Survival and truth are not mutually exclusive. You can be wrong and survive and you can be right and survive. The chance of your survival increase if you are better equipped with a brain that can assess the environment as accurately as possible.
@1986mbh Please consider that Plantinga is either woefully ignorant of or willfully dishonest about the major principles that underpin evolutionary theory. His assertion that evolution would not tend to select for behaviors that are caused by beliefs which are accurate understandings of reality is comical. It is a face palm kind of blunder. Plantinga should actually listen to an evolutionary biologist instead of coming up with his own imaginery ideas of about evolutionary theory.
Besides his pathetically-distorted represtation of evolution, he doesn't want to recognize that his same logic can be used even more effectively against theistic belief claims
Namely, scripture tells us that God on numerous occasions sends strongs delusions on people so that they would not believe & he "hardens their hearts", thus a theist has no sound basis upon which to assert that any of his beliefs are accurate, b/c he would have no idea if God was or wasn't fucking with him!
@leidenhag Gladly, thank you for your interest: It is a distortion of evolutionary theory to say that beliefs as abstract as meta-philosophy would be selected for their survival value. This is because the adaptive behavior he discusses w/in the context of natural selection only punishes/rewards very specific adaptations in very specific environments relating directly to reproduction..cntd V
Therefore, does his use of an evolutionary framework not require an explanation of how meta-philosophical thinking would/could exert any specific and significant effect on the ability of Homo sapiens to pass on its progeny?...or is he allowed to manipulate the theoretical bases of natural selection as he sees fit...?
HA! What a stupid video. The clips of people other than Plantiga were just childish; and WHY WOULD YOU CUT THE VIDEO OUT WHEN PLANTINGA WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN EXPLANATION? Get a life.
@JaffarDS I have read the full argument presented by Plantinga. This video is representation of my reaction to it. It is not a rebutal. The vast majority of people who have commented on this video expected a rebuttal or a counter-argument of some sort. If I wanted to make a rebuttal it wouldn't be 1.22 minutes long. I have engaged in extensive debates with Plantinga advocates in this comment section, read my comments and you will have your response.
@ChiefRepublic A great many of us also think the work of Dawkins is rather clueless, and that he too does not 'give a rats ass' about the real truth of where we originated. It seems a trend that everyone thinks one another speak in fallacies, and that since 'the other side' is clearly (lol, really?) a fallacy, I/we MUST be right (also a fallacy). But this is nothing new. At least I can see and admit this, regardles of my 'belief.'
@ChiefRepublic Eh, guess you missed it. But ok, I was simply making a parallel point to other view points and beliefs, that's all. Alvin Platinga addressed the Dawkins' proposition for the argument for evolution in the context of natural selection, suggesting that Dawkins founds his argument on a mostly probable premise rather than real, truthful, completeness.
@uberd00b Exactly. When he delves into scientific matters he makes a fool of himself. This video was not to show you how he makes a fool of himself. But rather for the viewer to extrapolate that themselves in what was presented to them.
Mr. Republic, I believe that if you desire to be taken seriously - you should make your arguments explicit to begin with, but instead you insist that your audience wade through the comment section where you come up with reasons after the fact. From now on perhaps you will only post something when you actually have a reason to do so at the outset, and not come up with excuses to cover up your lack of substance after the fact.
@muel0341 You are totally right. I will remove this video immediately. I failed to address Plantinga's argument. I clearly attempted to make a substantive video, eventhough it's only 1.22mins long. The whole point of this video was to show theists why this argument is doesn't work. I clearly had no other intention in mind. I have learned thanks to theists on Youtube that a facepalm is not enough to debunk an argument.
Chief Republic - I really don't think you've brought anything to the table here. You make this post and say that Plantiga doesn't know his stuff - yet you haven't done anything but post Plantinga's video and splice in a couple of other clips as if these objects taken together are supposed to refute plantinga - but they do nothing. In addition, you have not offered anything of substance in the discussion of the post either.
@muel0341 Read the comments section, half the comments are posted by me in response to queries like your own. If you weren't the 30th person to ask the same question, I would respond to you directly.
@aaronstately Read the comments section, half the comments are posted by me in response to queries like your own. If you weren't the 30th person to ask the same question, I would respond to you directly.
@ChiefRepublic You are making a textbook ad hominem attack. This is your "argument" 1) Alvin Plantinga makes a claim concerning evolutionary theory, 2) only biologists can make true claims about evolution and its relationship to our cognitive faculties, 3) therefore Plantingas argument is false. Classical logical fallacy since you can make true claims about evolutionary theory without being a biologist. So yes, an ad hominem attack. You attack Plantinga and not his argument.
@ChiefRepublic So your arguments consist of lol´s and ad hominems attacks. Great, good luck with that! You are really making a good case for atheism :)
@ChiefRepublic "It's just me laughing at your stupidity". Thank you! You have just proved my point: you only use ad hominems attack. I will not laugh at you, buy I will remain indifferent your non-arguments and non-skill when it comes to philosophy and critical thinking.
Plantinga does not hold himself out to be an expert on evolution. Do you even understand his argument? It seems doubtful that you do. He does not think it's unreasonable to believe in evolutionary theory or naturalism, but accepting both leads to a self-defeating result. Again, I doubt you've actually read or listened to his 'Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.' If you do happen to understand it, please make a more articulate video that reasonably attempts to refute his argument. Thanks
@stevek037 Please read your own comment again carefully and realise that you have missed the whole point of this video. You accuse my video of not being articulate enough?! Are you serious? There is nothing but Plantinga and a clip from Singletary in the video. At no point did I respond to his argument. I have written a lengths about the argument in the comments section and a little bit in the description box. This argument is really bad and the video is a product of my apathy towards it.
@ChiefRepublic Well at least make clear what you object to. For God's sake, your video is entitled, "Alvin Plantinga is an Expert on Evolution." If you really believe this, you're mistaken because he's not. If you don't believe this and are using it satirically, then it makes no sense because never has he claimed be be an expert in evolution, or science. Secondly, you say he doesn't give a rat's ass about what science has to say, yet he presents evolutionary theory accurately and cares a...
@ChiefRepublic ...a great deal about science. Lastly, he never says if evolution is true, there must be a God. You're attacking straw men. Your position is ridiculous and I think most people see that.
0:02 - There is a lot of surprising scientific evidence to the contrary of materialism, that consciousness is not reducible to a material substance. This doesn't mean the theistic God exists, but it does mean that another substance does, which the materialists cannot account for. If the materialist thesis is (∀x)(Mx) or for all x, x is 'material', all that is needed to falsify the thesis is one x that exists, such that not all x are M: (∃x)(~Mx). Evidence includes psi; see Tart, Radin, Schwartz
. . . . Ummm . . . so was this movies suppose to criticizes Alvin Plantinga? Because it faild miserably especially since you didn't really rebuttal him and condescended to your viewers by posting in the video discription "Seriously, if you can't refute this argument then I have no hope for you." Hope for what exactly?
To quote the description, "argument that says that if evolution is true then there must be a God."
That is not what Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" claims. The argument is that if one is a Naturalist and an Evolutionist (NE), then one has a defeater for all of one's beliefs. If all of your beliefs are defeated, then NE itself is defeated. So, holding NE leaves one in a vicious skeptical circle.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, but at least get the argument right.
@FrostyPhilosopher I dont like beating around the bush. This is a childish argument and I'll represent the argument how I think it should be accurately presented thank you very much. It's funny how you don't seem to care a rats ass about how he bastardizes three fields of science in this argument. Let's be real here alright, we're not kidding anyone; Alvin Plantinga is a creationist and he is scientifically illiterate.
@ChiefRepublic Man, you have no interest in understanding what Plantinga is saying, do you. You just detect religious belief and say "MORON! CREATIONIST!"
@cryptickripke You have no interest in the what real scientist have to say do you? Otherwise you wouldn't be defending this piece of childish thinking. If Plantinga wants to step into the scientific arena he is by all means welcome to but he should be prepared to be torn to shreds. I haven't called him a Moron, but he is by his own admission an intelligent design advocate and intelligent design is creationism.
@ChiefRepublic If you took the time to see what Plantinga actually thinks, he recognizes that evolution is true and thinks it causes problems for naturalism. He doesn't advocate ID, but he thinks God created the universe and guided the process of evolution to allow for human beings to arise. I think he's dead wrong on all accounts, but he has never denied that evolution is a true scientific theory. The man is a respected and influential epistemologist, and you're taking cheap, false pot shots.
@cryptickripke Whether he is a respected and influential epistemologist has squat diddly to do with his argument that evolution without a supernatural intervention is highly improbable. That argument is scientific illiteracy at it's zenith. I mean it is just false plain and simple. You obviously don't agree with Plantinga but you seem offended by my approach to this argument more than anything.
@ChiefRepublic "his argument that evolution without a supernatural intervention is highly improbable." His argument is that nothing about the blind evolutionary process mandates that our beliefs be accurate, only that they be adaptive. Naturalism, as a belief, is therefore made suspect by its own premises (specifically that evolution is "unguided"). He's not saying that evolution is improbable w/out God, just that naturalism as a truth-aiming belief is inconsistent with the fact of evolution.
@cryptickripke "He's not saying that evolution is improbable w/out God, just that naturalism as a truth-aiming belief is inconsistent with the fact of evolution." If evolution is assumed true and naturalism is inconsistent with evolution. What is naturalism? Well it's basically the idea that there is no supernatural element to the universe. So if evolution is true then there is high chance that there is supernatural element in the universe to guide this evolutionary process. Am I correct?
@ChiefRepublic Naturalism is taken to be the belief that everything proceeds according to "blind," unguided (read: natural) laws. IOW: no gods. Plantinga says that if evolution proceeded "blindly," then our belief-forming faculties only needed to be adaptive, not truth-giving. He gives the example of a tribe that thinks (due to natural selection) that everything is due to the power of witches. He argues that this tribe could survive and evolve and so on even though every belief they have...
@cryptickripke ...is false, because every belief implies that witches exist. So _naturalistic_ evolution (read: no God intervening to make sure you are a truth-grasping as opposed to merely adaptive creature) only requires that your beliefs be ADAPTIVE, not that they be TRUE. I might run from a bear because I think bears can shoot lasers; I thus live long enough to propagate my DNA even though my beliefs are false. So naturalism implies that there is no reason to suppose our beliefs are true...
@cryptickripke ...because evolution, if unguided, makes it unlikely that our beliefs are true. A great many beliefs could be adaptive to a particular situation (take the bear example), but only a few of those are true. Why would we be so astronomically lucky that our beliefs are true as well as adaptive? Under naturalism, we have no reason to think we are so lucky. But naturalism, as a belief, is also just the product of blind Darwinian laws, and so it is probably false.
@cryptickripke So, according to Plantinga, we're in the situation that if naturalism is true--and our belief-forming faculties are due to blind evolution--then naturalism is probably false (because it's a belief and therefore suspect). His solution is to reject naturalism and say that the only way we could be "lucky" enough to have not just adaptive but TRUE beliefs, is that God intervened in the process of evolution, or designed it such that we would have truth, not just adaptability.
@cryptickripke Sorry for the ridiculously long thread, I just wanted to clearly state the argument as I see it so you could respond to it. As I think you can see, it's decidedly anti-creationist.
@cryptickripke First of all let me just state that I am very familiar with this argument, nonetheless I appreciate the clarification . Secondly I don't believe that the argument is anti-creationist at all. It makes no comment on the veracity of creationism. A creationist could well use this argument against naturalism. Thirdly I wanted a clarification because you claimed I misresprented Plantinga when I said the conclusion of the argument boils down to "evolution without
@ChiefRepublic ...God is improbable. Call it God, call it an intelligent designer, call it supernaturalism. I don’t care what you call it. But whatever you call it, the falsehood or improbability of naturalism makes X highly probable according to this argument. X can be whatever divine entity you wish it to be and I know the argument doesn’t explicitly state this but it can be rationally deduced. If not so please tell me why. I’m genuinely curious.
@ChiefRepublic What I meant by clarifying was that he isn't merely saying that evolution couldn't happen without a God. What he's saying is improbable without God is our developing the cognitive capacity to form beliefs that not only allow us to propagate DNA but also have the queer property of being true. Also notice, the only cog sci claims he makes are 1) that we have the capacity to form beliefs, and 2) that under naturalism, these faculties arise through blind, unguided evolution.
@cryptickripke When we try to justify the myriad beliefs we have about the world, we look at our cognitive capacities and see why we are justified in believing the things they allow us to. Plantinga says evolution isn't good enough, because all it requires is that our cognitive capacities motivate us into actions that allow us to pass on our DNA. This prompts interesting questions even if you reject the theistic conclusion--which is why I say Plantinga is a legitimate philosopher.
@cryptickripke You've just stated the argument for the 20th time. I'm sorry, but I'm not 5 years old and I HAVE read it. I haven't questioned Plantinga's profession. As far as I know there are no reasons to believe he isn't a legitimate philosopher. I have however questioned Plantinga's knowledge of science. I assume you know why this isn't a very good argument. But do you realise how laughably absurd human evolution would be if what Plantinga states is true?
@ChiefRepublic You said things like "So if evolution is true then there is high chance that there is supernatural element in the universe to guide this evolutionary process. Am I correct?" and "If not so please tell me why. I’m genuinely curious." So I tried to explain how I see it. Nobody said you were five years old. I was hoping you would voice some objection to the argument (beyond calling Plantinga "scientifically illiterate"). So far I haven't seen one.
@ChiefRepublic "you seem offended by my approach to this argument more than anything." My point was that he has arguments that rely on the truth of evolution as a premise yet you (and many others) label him a creationist. It's bad ultimately for our (atheist) side, since the only way to really refute a position is to state it at it's strongest. Even if he actually were a creationist, you should still try to state the argument in its strongest form, with no creationist strings attached.
@ChiefRepublic You might also take him as saying that, since we DO have true beliefs about the world, and evolution without God makes this exceedingly unlikely, then we should assume divine intervention or design in the course of evolution to allow for human beings to understand truth, as opposed to merely survive long enough to propagate DNA. It's not evolution that's in doubt for Plantinga, but naturalism or atheism. Do you have a good response to this argument?
@cryptickripke I am willing to concede that he is not ID-creationist but he has been advocate for it, its just not clear whether he still is. Fair play to him if he's changedh is mind, but I get the feeling that if he had to vote on whether ID should be taught in schools he would vote yes. And thanks for sending me a link to the great Christian youtuber that is drcraigvideos, he blocked me because I am an atheist, *chuckle*. Hence I can't comment on that video.
@ChiefRepublic You claim that his argument is "If evolution is true, then there is no God." The argument is actually "If you believe in naturalistic evolution, then you have a defeater for every belief you have. Therefore, one cannot consistently hold naturalistic evolution." I assume you can read these two statements and see that they are not identical. Therefore, you can see that you are not representing him accurately. You don't just get to choose what someone else says.
I don't think Plantinga is saying anything even remotely like "beliefs are hard-wired into the brain". I don't know where you got that. Perhaps he has said so elsewhere but I'd be surprised.
Is it always your habit to make unwarranted assumptions based on insufficient evidence, or is this just something that the presence of a religious context brings up in you?
@HaecceitasQuidditas I just don't want to dance around the issue. You obviously bothered to read my comment, so from that I assume you have some interest in this issue. If you want to defend this argument or correct me in where I'm wrong in my critique of this childish argument then do so or you can run away like legodesi and athlete117.
I think Plantinga's argument works perfectly well if one assumes that the propositional content of a belief isn't causally relevant (epiphenomenalism, etc.). In such a case, there's no reason to assume that the belief's truth or lack thereof would have anything to do with the organism's survival and reproduction. The weak spot of the argument is how it deals with a view of mental causation where belief contents become relevant. I don't know whether that part can be salvaged.
@HaecceitasQuidditas ...your intelligence by pointing out how stupid this but if you would like me to I'd be more than happy to give you some 101 cognitive neuro-science. And he didn't actually say the phrase beliefs are hardwired but he certainly proposes the ludicrous notion that true or untrue beliefs can be passed on genetically.I recommned you read Moral Psychology, Volume 2, to see what the relationship between beliefs, social T's and evolution.
Sorry but I'm not aware of anything said by Plantinga that would commit him to the absurd notion that true or untrue beliefs are passed on genetically. What he probably would say is that cognitive mechanisms that tend to produce certain types of beliefs in certain circumstances are genetically passed on.
Re. tiger-avoidance example, sure, its kind of absurd. However, I think you may be missing a step in Plantinga's argument. The point isn't to argue that things actually ARE thís way (that would be refutable with reference to cog. neursci books). It's to illustrate one among countless possible ways that things COULD BE. The point being that all that is required is a set of beliefs that allows consistent interaction with one´s environment. Truth as such is irrelevant.
But I'd still like to know where you've heard or read Plantinga assert that beliefs are hard-wired into the brain. That may possibly be a straw-man (even if unintentionally so) on your part.
@HaecceitasQuidditas "I think Plantinga's argument works perfectly..." Why dilly dally around the issue and admit straight away that you think this argument is valid. It really frustrates me. I hope you are familiar with the example he gives to illustrate this argument. "Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect" Seriously how can you read this and not facepalm a million times. I dont want to insult...
I don't know how I can be more straightforward. I think the argument works on the condition that one holds to a view of human mind where propositional contents of a belief don't enter into the causation of behavior. If that condition doesn't hold, I doubt that Plantinga's argument goes through the way it is stated.
i don't think you've gotten his argument. he is basically explaining why a materialist theory of mind leads to epiphenomenalism, leading to low probability of properly functioning brain faculties.
i don't get how you've refuted his argument. many materialistic theories of intentionality (chalmers, foder, davidson's) make the content of belief epiphenomenal. which makes them causally irrelevant
@legodesi I don't want to get into a debate over dualism and all that good stuff, but I have responded from merely a scientific point of view and pointed out how this argument is very childish and undermines many sciences.
He also gives the example of the guy who thinks the tiger is a cuddly pussy cat. Lets just go along with his groundbreaking theory on how beliefs are formed... In order for the man to acquire this false belief he would have met a tiger that wasn't hostile to him when he approached it. This belief could not form in the mind spontaneously unless it was due to some external stimuli. I think Plantinga misconstrues the change in genetic freqeuncy with pragmatic mind beliefs.
The biochemical explanation of what is happening inside your body at any given time is not the same thing as the content of a belief. Plantinga's argument is that it would be perfectly plausible within a naturalistic framework for false beliefs to have beneficial adaptive behavioural traits attached to them, which would be "selected for" in this evolutionary context. Seems good to me, since that's how naturalists believe our cognitive faculties evolved. Disdain doesn't amount to an argument.
@athlete117 I did not make an argument you are absolutely right. I assume that evolution is true. You missed the point of the video, I titled the video 'Alvin is an expert of evolution' because that is precisely what he isn't, he is an ID theorist. And my objective was to demonstrate how someone who lacks a basic understanding of modern biology ends up making a fool of himself. Now I see you actually hold this argument to be valid. I have seen this argument refuted in many forms but its...
@ChiefRepublic very simple to refute. Plantinga is straw-manning how beliefs are actually formed, anyone with a rudimentarry understanding of cognition knows that . He completely misrepresents how the brain forms beliefs. I can promise you that absolutely nobody holds to the beliefs represented by Plantinga at any scientific level. You won't find any scientific literature supporting what he says. I can send you some articles on the limits of cogntive modality via pm if you want.
@ChiefRepublic Let me be clear I'm not talking about his Christian beliefs or anything like that but the contention that beliefs are hard-wired into the brain. This is a very complex issue and his complete disregard of that is what annoys me. You can't just bastardize a whole science for a silly philosophical argument especially when you in this day and age believe that the process in question (evolution) is false.
Technically, all that science is about is adaptive behavior. We adapt our beliefs to our empirical experiences.
TheMessianicManic 2 weeks ago
@ChiefRepublic You don't seem to have understood Plantinga's argument if you think it's an argument for the existence of God. His conclusion is simply that someone who accepts both naturalism and evolution acquires a defeater for his belief that his cognitive faculties are reliable, and so also acquires a defeater for all the beliefs produced by his cognitive faculties including his belief in naturalism.
1986mbh 2 weeks ago
@1986mbh Thank you for your courteous response. But I don't like beating around the bush. His argument doesn't explicitly state that it is a proof of God. But who are we kidding, he is arguing that evolution could not have occured unguided. And as science student his callous disregard for scientific principles irks me.
ChiefRepublic 2 weeks ago
@ChiefRepublic Yes I agree, the EEAN is part of a package of arguments seeking to undermine naturalism and thus ultimately to lend weight to theism. I don't think the aim of the argument is to show that evolution couldn't have occurred unguided, though.
1986mbh 2 weeks ago
What Plantinga is claiming, rather, is that a naturalist is very likely committed to materialism with respect to human beings (and indeed, this is the case for many prominent naturalist philosophers of mind: e.g. Daniel Dennett, Paul & Patricia Churchland, etc).
1986mbh 2 weeks ago
If one holds that mental states are epiphenomena (as the above thinkers do), i.e. they play no causal role in accounting for human behaviour, then it follows that the beliefs we hold have a merely arbitrary relation to the neurophysiological structures which give rise to them. If that is the case, then natural selection cannot be expected to select for true belief, but merely adaptive neurophysiology--the two having no necessary connection.
1986mbh 2 weeks ago
@1986mbh That's a gross bastardisation of the actual science. Why does a bird fly off when it senses a predator? The common notion would be to say that it has evolved to perform this action when it receives sensory input to the brain identifying a threat. But that is actually wrong. Plantinga takes this layman understanding and applies it to not only natural selection but to cognitive neuro science. It's akin to applying Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics.
ChiefRepublic 2 weeks ago
@ChiefRepublic Thanks ChiefRepublic, I'd be interested then, how would modern evolutionary biology account for the bird's flight from the predator?
1986mbh 2 weeks ago
@1986mbh The development of a central hub (brain) that collects data from external stimuli. This information goes through a complex process, where more often than not, the "better safe than sorry" option is chosen. The bird doesn't simply identify predator and automatically flee. This is not say that the genetic makeup of, say, a swallow doesn't predetermine its likelihood of fleeing extremely probable.
ChiefRepublic 2 weeks ago
@1986mbh Plantinga claims that we evolved cognitive faculties that produce beliefs geared towards survival rather than beliefs. Survival and truth are not mutually exclusive. You can be wrong and survive and you can be right and survive. The chance of your survival increase if you are better equipped with a brain that can assess the environment as accurately as possible.
ChiefRepublic 2 weeks ago
@1986mbh Please consider that Plantinga is either woefully ignorant of or willfully dishonest about the major principles that underpin evolutionary theory. His assertion that evolution would not tend to select for behaviors that are caused by beliefs which are accurate understandings of reality is comical. It is a face palm kind of blunder. Plantinga should actually listen to an evolutionary biologist instead of coming up with his own imaginery ideas of about evolutionary theory.
LetReasonPrevail1 2 weeks ago
Besides his pathetically-distorted represtation of evolution, he doesn't want to recognize that his same logic can be used even more effectively against theistic belief claims
Namely, scripture tells us that God on numerous occasions sends strongs delusions on people so that they would not believe & he "hardens their hearts", thus a theist has no sound basis upon which to assert that any of his beliefs are accurate, b/c he would have no idea if God was or wasn't fucking with him!
LetReasonPrevail1 2 weeks ago
In his book "The Miracle of Theism" J.L. Mackie OWNS Plantinga by refuting many of his arguments ...
OppressedAnarchist 2 months ago
Argument against Plantinga: he does not understand evolutionary theory and is distorting a basic element of it to make his point.
superhumane504 2 months ago
@superhumane504 Could you clarify how Plantinga misunderstands evolutionary theory? Or are you just here to make unjustified claims?
leidenhag 1 month ago
Comment removed
superhumane504 1 month ago
Comment removed
superhumane504 1 month ago
@leidenhag Gladly, thank you for your interest: It is a distortion of evolutionary theory to say that beliefs as abstract as meta-philosophy would be selected for their survival value. This is because the adaptive behavior he discusses w/in the context of natural selection only punishes/rewards very specific adaptations in very specific environments relating directly to reproduction..cntd V
superhumane504 1 month ago
Therefore, does his use of an evolutionary framework not require an explanation of how meta-philosophical thinking would/could exert any specific and significant effect on the ability of Homo sapiens to pass on its progeny?...or is he allowed to manipulate the theoretical bases of natural selection as he sees fit...?
superhumane504 1 month ago
HA! What a stupid video. The clips of people other than Plantiga were just childish; and WHY WOULD YOU CUT THE VIDEO OUT WHEN PLANTINGA WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN EXPLANATION? Get a life.
ShaneequaRayquaza 3 months ago
People who make videos like this most likely haven't read a work by the person they're attacking.
JaffarDS 4 months ago 3
@JaffarDS Did it hurt your feelings?
ChiefRepublic 4 months ago
@ChiefRepublic Nope, but have you read a work by Dr. Plantinga? Also, I think you misunderstand his Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism...
JaffarDS 4 months ago
@JaffarDS I have read the full argument presented by Plantinga. This video is representation of my reaction to it. It is not a rebutal. The vast majority of people who have commented on this video expected a rebuttal or a counter-argument of some sort. If I wanted to make a rebuttal it wouldn't be 1.22 minutes long. I have engaged in extensive debates with Plantinga advocates in this comment section, read my comments and you will have your response.
ChiefRepublic 4 months ago
@ChiefRepublic A great many of us also think the work of Dawkins is rather clueless, and that he too does not 'give a rats ass' about the real truth of where we originated. It seems a trend that everyone thinks one another speak in fallacies, and that since 'the other side' is clearly (lol, really?) a fallacy, I/we MUST be right (also a fallacy). But this is nothing new. At least I can see and admit this, regardles of my 'belief.'
9b8 2 months ago
@9b8 What does this have to do with Richard Dawkins? I have never read any of his 'works' or books.
ChiefRepublic 2 months ago
@ChiefRepublic Eh, guess you missed it. But ok, I was simply making a parallel point to other view points and beliefs, that's all. Alvin Platinga addressed the Dawkins' proposition for the argument for evolution in the context of natural selection, suggesting that Dawkins founds his argument on a mostly probable premise rather than real, truthful, completeness.
9b8 2 months ago
@JaffarDS No this really is utter nonsense.
uberd00b 4 months ago
What advantage could knowing that fire burns or that taking a long walk off a short pier is not a good idea have? This is one of theology's big guns?
uberd00b 4 months ago
@uberd00b Exactly. When he delves into scientific matters he makes a fool of himself. This video was not to show you how he makes a fool of himself. But rather for the viewer to extrapolate that themselves in what was presented to them.
ChiefRepublic 4 months ago
Well, your efforts failed on both counts then didn't they?
muel0341 8 months ago
Mr. Republic, I believe that if you desire to be taken seriously - you should make your arguments explicit to begin with, but instead you insist that your audience wade through the comment section where you come up with reasons after the fact. From now on perhaps you will only post something when you actually have a reason to do so at the outset, and not come up with excuses to cover up your lack of substance after the fact.
muel0341 8 months ago
@muel0341 You are totally right. I will remove this video immediately. I failed to address Plantinga's argument. I clearly attempted to make a substantive video, eventhough it's only 1.22mins long. The whole point of this video was to show theists why this argument is doesn't work. I clearly had no other intention in mind. I have learned thanks to theists on Youtube that a facepalm is not enough to debunk an argument.
ChiefRepublic 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheEsiotrot 6 months ago
@TheEsiotrot I would respond but you have deleted your comment so... lets just leave it at that.
ChiefRepublic 6 months ago
Chief Republic - I really don't think you've brought anything to the table here. You make this post and say that Plantiga doesn't know his stuff - yet you haven't done anything but post Plantinga's video and splice in a couple of other clips as if these objects taken together are supposed to refute plantinga - but they do nothing. In addition, you have not offered anything of substance in the discussion of the post either.
muel0341 8 months ago 11
@muel0341 Read the comments section, half the comments are posted by me in response to queries like your own. If you weren't the 30th person to ask the same question, I would respond to you directly.
ChiefRepublic 8 months ago
I fail to see the contradiction you so profoundly pronounce. Please enlighten me to it.
aaronstately 8 months ago
@aaronstately Read the comments section, half the comments are posted by me in response to queries like your own. If you weren't the 30th person to ask the same question, I would respond to you directly.
ChiefRepublic 8 months ago
@ChiefRepublic I read your comments and i can not see anywhere your perceived contradictions of plantinga stated in your video.
Why dont you just put those refutations in the Description of the video....would be alot easier than me having to ask?
aaronstately 8 months ago
Typical atheistic sort of reasoning. Claim that a theists argument is invalid without offering any justification.
leidenhag 10 months ago
@leidenhag Typical Christian... completely missed the point of the video. It's alright I didn't expect you to.
ChiefRepublic 10 months ago
@ChiefRepublic Well, there was no point to to video. Just a classical ad hominem attack.
leidenhag 10 months ago
@leidenhag Haha, a facepalm is considered an ad hom these days.
ChiefRepublic 10 months ago
@ChiefRepublic You are making a textbook ad hominem attack. This is your "argument" 1) Alvin Plantinga makes a claim concerning evolutionary theory, 2) only biologists can make true claims about evolution and its relationship to our cognitive faculties, 3) therefore Plantingas argument is false. Classical logical fallacy since you can make true claims about evolutionary theory without being a biologist. So yes, an ad hominem attack. You attack Plantinga and not his argument.
leidenhag 10 months ago
@leidenhag LOL
ChiefRepublic 10 months ago
@ChiefRepublic So your arguments consist of lol´s and ad hominems attacks. Great, good luck with that! You are really making a good case for atheism :)
leidenhag 10 months ago 16
@leidenhag We are not arguing, It's just me laughing at your stupidity. Just like the video. Poetic.
ChiefRepublic 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChiefRepublic "It's just me laughing at your stupidity". Thank you! You have just proved my point: you only use ad hominems attack. I will not laugh at you, buy I will remain indifferent your non-arguments and non-skill when it comes to philosophy and critical thinking.
leidenhag 10 months ago 15
@ChiefRepublic Thats another ad hom attack. you are just full of em.
wick2107 8 months ago
@wick2107 Come back to me when you've learned what an ad hominem fallacy is.
ChiefRepublic 8 months ago
@ChiefRepublic I will come back to you when you learn how to debate
wick2107 8 months ago
@wick2107 Since when did we engange in a debate?
ChiefRepublic 8 months ago
Plantinga does not hold himself out to be an expert on evolution. Do you even understand his argument? It seems doubtful that you do. He does not think it's unreasonable to believe in evolutionary theory or naturalism, but accepting both leads to a self-defeating result. Again, I doubt you've actually read or listened to his 'Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.' If you do happen to understand it, please make a more articulate video that reasonably attempts to refute his argument. Thanks
stevek037 1 year ago
@stevek037 Please read your own comment again carefully and realise that you have missed the whole point of this video. You accuse my video of not being articulate enough?! Are you serious? There is nothing but Plantinga and a clip from Singletary in the video. At no point did I respond to his argument. I have written a lengths about the argument in the comments section and a little bit in the description box. This argument is really bad and the video is a product of my apathy towards it.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic Well at least make clear what you object to. For God's sake, your video is entitled, "Alvin Plantinga is an Expert on Evolution." If you really believe this, you're mistaken because he's not. If you don't believe this and are using it satirically, then it makes no sense because never has he claimed be be an expert in evolution, or science. Secondly, you say he doesn't give a rat's ass about what science has to say, yet he presents evolutionary theory accurately and cares a...
stevek037 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic ...a great deal about science. Lastly, he never says if evolution is true, there must be a God. You're attacking straw men. Your position is ridiculous and I think most people see that.
stevek037 1 year ago
0:02 - There is a lot of surprising scientific evidence to the contrary of materialism, that consciousness is not reducible to a material substance. This doesn't mean the theistic God exists, but it does mean that another substance does, which the materialists cannot account for. If the materialist thesis is (∀x)(Mx) or for all x, x is 'material', all that is needed to falsify the thesis is one x that exists, such that not all x are M: (∃x)(~Mx). Evidence includes psi; see Tart, Radin, Schwartz
Oppositum 1 year ago
. . . . Ummm . . . so was this movies suppose to criticizes Alvin Plantinga? Because it faild miserably especially since you didn't really rebuttal him and condescended to your viewers by posting in the video discription "Seriously, if you can't refute this argument then I have no hope for you." Hope for what exactly?
Lukyo1984 1 year ago
@Lukyo1984 The purpose of this video is very clear. I apologize it manage to evade you that easily.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
To quote the description, "argument that says that if evolution is true then there must be a God."
That is not what Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" claims. The argument is that if one is a Naturalist and an Evolutionist (NE), then one has a defeater for all of one's beliefs. If all of your beliefs are defeated, then NE itself is defeated. So, holding NE leaves one in a vicious skeptical circle.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, but at least get the argument right.
FrostyPhilosopher 1 year ago
@FrostyPhilosopher I dont like beating around the bush. This is a childish argument and I'll represent the argument how I think it should be accurately presented thank you very much. It's funny how you don't seem to care a rats ass about how he bastardizes three fields of science in this argument. Let's be real here alright, we're not kidding anyone; Alvin Plantinga is a creationist and he is scientifically illiterate.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic Man, you have no interest in understanding what Plantinga is saying, do you. You just detect religious belief and say "MORON! CREATIONIST!"
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke You have no interest in the what real scientist have to say do you? Otherwise you wouldn't be defending this piece of childish thinking. If Plantinga wants to step into the scientific arena he is by all means welcome to but he should be prepared to be torn to shreds. I haven't called him a Moron, but he is by his own admission an intelligent design advocate and intelligent design is creationism.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic If you took the time to see what Plantinga actually thinks, he recognizes that evolution is true and thinks it causes problems for naturalism. He doesn't advocate ID, but he thinks God created the universe and guided the process of evolution to allow for human beings to arise. I think he's dead wrong on all accounts, but he has never denied that evolution is a true scientific theory. The man is a respected and influential epistemologist, and you're taking cheap, false pot shots.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke Whether he is a respected and influential epistemologist has squat diddly to do with his argument that evolution without a supernatural intervention is highly improbable. That argument is scientific illiteracy at it's zenith. I mean it is just false plain and simple. You obviously don't agree with Plantinga but you seem offended by my approach to this argument more than anything.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic "his argument that evolution without a supernatural intervention is highly improbable." His argument is that nothing about the blind evolutionary process mandates that our beliefs be accurate, only that they be adaptive. Naturalism, as a belief, is therefore made suspect by its own premises (specifically that evolution is "unguided"). He's not saying that evolution is improbable w/out God, just that naturalism as a truth-aiming belief is inconsistent with the fact of evolution.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke "He's not saying that evolution is improbable w/out God, just that naturalism as a truth-aiming belief is inconsistent with the fact of evolution." If evolution is assumed true and naturalism is inconsistent with evolution. What is naturalism? Well it's basically the idea that there is no supernatural element to the universe. So if evolution is true then there is high chance that there is supernatural element in the universe to guide this evolutionary process. Am I correct?
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic Naturalism is taken to be the belief that everything proceeds according to "blind," unguided (read: natural) laws. IOW: no gods. Plantinga says that if evolution proceeded "blindly," then our belief-forming faculties only needed to be adaptive, not truth-giving. He gives the example of a tribe that thinks (due to natural selection) that everything is due to the power of witches. He argues that this tribe could survive and evolve and so on even though every belief they have...
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke ...is false, because every belief implies that witches exist. So _naturalistic_ evolution (read: no God intervening to make sure you are a truth-grasping as opposed to merely adaptive creature) only requires that your beliefs be ADAPTIVE, not that they be TRUE. I might run from a bear because I think bears can shoot lasers; I thus live long enough to propagate my DNA even though my beliefs are false. So naturalism implies that there is no reason to suppose our beliefs are true...
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke ...because evolution, if unguided, makes it unlikely that our beliefs are true. A great many beliefs could be adaptive to a particular situation (take the bear example), but only a few of those are true. Why would we be so astronomically lucky that our beliefs are true as well as adaptive? Under naturalism, we have no reason to think we are so lucky. But naturalism, as a belief, is also just the product of blind Darwinian laws, and so it is probably false.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke So, according to Plantinga, we're in the situation that if naturalism is true--and our belief-forming faculties are due to blind evolution--then naturalism is probably false (because it's a belief and therefore suspect). His solution is to reject naturalism and say that the only way we could be "lucky" enough to have not just adaptive but TRUE beliefs, is that God intervened in the process of evolution, or designed it such that we would have truth, not just adaptability.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke Sorry for the ridiculously long thread, I just wanted to clearly state the argument as I see it so you could respond to it. As I think you can see, it's decidedly anti-creationist.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke First of all let me just state that I am very familiar with this argument, nonetheless I appreciate the clarification . Secondly I don't believe that the argument is anti-creationist at all. It makes no comment on the veracity of creationism. A creationist could well use this argument against naturalism. Thirdly I wanted a clarification because you claimed I misresprented Plantinga when I said the conclusion of the argument boils down to "evolution without
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic ...God is improbable. Call it God, call it an intelligent designer, call it supernaturalism. I don’t care what you call it. But whatever you call it, the falsehood or improbability of naturalism makes X highly probable according to this argument. X can be whatever divine entity you wish it to be and I know the argument doesn’t explicitly state this but it can be rationally deduced. If not so please tell me why. I’m genuinely curious.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic What I meant by clarifying was that he isn't merely saying that evolution couldn't happen without a God. What he's saying is improbable without God is our developing the cognitive capacity to form beliefs that not only allow us to propagate DNA but also have the queer property of being true. Also notice, the only cog sci claims he makes are 1) that we have the capacity to form beliefs, and 2) that under naturalism, these faculties arise through blind, unguided evolution.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke When we try to justify the myriad beliefs we have about the world, we look at our cognitive capacities and see why we are justified in believing the things they allow us to. Plantinga says evolution isn't good enough, because all it requires is that our cognitive capacities motivate us into actions that allow us to pass on our DNA. This prompts interesting questions even if you reject the theistic conclusion--which is why I say Plantinga is a legitimate philosopher.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke You've just stated the argument for the 20th time. I'm sorry, but I'm not 5 years old and I HAVE read it. I haven't questioned Plantinga's profession. As far as I know there are no reasons to believe he isn't a legitimate philosopher. I have however questioned Plantinga's knowledge of science. I assume you know why this isn't a very good argument. But do you realise how laughably absurd human evolution would be if what Plantinga states is true?
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic You said things like "So if evolution is true then there is high chance that there is supernatural element in the universe to guide this evolutionary process. Am I correct?" and "If not so please tell me why. I’m genuinely curious." So I tried to explain how I see it. Nobody said you were five years old. I was hoping you would voice some objection to the argument (beyond calling Plantinga "scientifically illiterate"). So far I haven't seen one.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke How about my video "Not 1 or 2, but 5 problems with plantinga's EAAN!"?
nightvidcole 11 months ago
@ChiefRepublic "you seem offended by my approach to this argument more than anything." My point was that he has arguments that rely on the truth of evolution as a premise yet you (and many others) label him a creationist. It's bad ultimately for our (atheist) side, since the only way to really refute a position is to state it at it's strongest. Even if he actually were a creationist, you should still try to state the argument in its strongest form, with no creationist strings attached.
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic You might also take him as saying that, since we DO have true beliefs about the world, and evolution without God makes this exceedingly unlikely, then we should assume divine intervention or design in the course of evolution to allow for human beings to understand truth, as opposed to merely survive long enough to propagate DNA. It's not evolution that's in doubt for Plantinga, but naturalism or atheism. Do you have a good response to this argument?
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic Skip to 10:10 on this video: watch?v=9TnD496LWvQ
"...evolution is an important, widely-accepted, paradigmatic, contemporary scientific theory."
cryptickripke 1 year ago
@cryptickripke I am willing to concede that he is not ID-creationist but he has been advocate for it, its just not clear whether he still is. Fair play to him if he's changedh is mind, but I get the feeling that if he had to vote on whether ID should be taught in schools he would vote yes. And thanks for sending me a link to the great Christian youtuber that is drcraigvideos, he blocked me because I am an atheist, *chuckle*. Hence I can't comment on that video.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
Comment removed
FrostyPhilosopher 8 months ago
@ChiefRepublic You claim that his argument is "If evolution is true, then there is no God." The argument is actually "If you believe in naturalistic evolution, then you have a defeater for every belief you have. Therefore, one cannot consistently hold naturalistic evolution." I assume you can read these two statements and see that they are not identical. Therefore, you can see that you are not representing him accurately. You don't just get to choose what someone else says.
FrostyPhilosopher 8 months ago
I don't think Plantinga is saying anything even remotely like "beliefs are hard-wired into the brain". I don't know where you got that. Perhaps he has said so elsewhere but I'd be surprised.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas A fan of the Plantinga? Why don't you defend his non-sense then. I await your response.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic
Is it always your habit to make unwarranted assumptions based on insufficient evidence, or is this just something that the presence of a religious context brings up in you?
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas I just don't want to dance around the issue. You obviously bothered to read my comment, so from that I assume you have some interest in this issue. If you want to defend this argument or correct me in where I'm wrong in my critique of this childish argument then do so or you can run away like legodesi and athlete117.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic
I think Plantinga's argument works perfectly well if one assumes that the propositional content of a belief isn't causally relevant (epiphenomenalism, etc.). In such a case, there's no reason to assume that the belief's truth or lack thereof would have anything to do with the organism's survival and reproduction. The weak spot of the argument is how it deals with a view of mental causation where belief contents become relevant. I don't know whether that part can be salvaged.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas ...your intelligence by pointing out how stupid this but if you would like me to I'd be more than happy to give you some 101 cognitive neuro-science. And he didn't actually say the phrase beliefs are hardwired but he certainly proposes the ludicrous notion that true or untrue beliefs can be passed on genetically.I recommned you read Moral Psychology, Volume 2, to see what the relationship between beliefs, social T's and evolution.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic
Sorry but I'm not aware of anything said by Plantinga that would commit him to the absurd notion that true or untrue beliefs are passed on genetically. What he probably would say is that cognitive mechanisms that tend to produce certain types of beliefs in certain circumstances are genetically passed on.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic
Re. tiger-avoidance example, sure, its kind of absurd. However, I think you may be missing a step in Plantinga's argument. The point isn't to argue that things actually ARE thís way (that would be refutable with reference to cog. neursci books). It's to illustrate one among countless possible ways that things COULD BE. The point being that all that is required is a set of beliefs that allows consistent interaction with one´s environment. Truth as such is irrelevant.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic
But I'd still like to know where you've heard or read Plantinga assert that beliefs are hard-wired into the brain. That may possibly be a straw-man (even if unintentionally so) on your part.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas "I think Plantinga's argument works perfectly..." Why dilly dally around the issue and admit straight away that you think this argument is valid. It really frustrates me. I hope you are familiar with the example he gives to illustrate this argument. "Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect" Seriously how can you read this and not facepalm a million times. I dont want to insult...
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic
I don't know how I can be more straightforward. I think the argument works on the condition that one holds to a view of human mind where propositional contents of a belief don't enter into the causation of behavior. If that condition doesn't hold, I doubt that Plantinga's argument goes through the way it is stated.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
Many of Plantinga's arguments are very dependent on assumption, so it's understandable to not be able to take him seriously.
atheistworstenemy 1 year ago
i don't think you've gotten his argument. he is basically explaining why a materialist theory of mind leads to epiphenomenalism, leading to low probability of properly functioning brain faculties.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi I've addressed the issue to death in my comment responses to athlete117. Read them and you'll see why I made this video.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic
i don't get how you've refuted his argument. many materialistic theories of intentionality (chalmers, foder, davidson's) make the content of belief epiphenomenal. which makes them causally irrelevant
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi I don't want to get into a debate over dualism and all that good stuff, but I have responded from merely a scientific point of view and pointed out how this argument is very childish and undermines many sciences.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
He also gives the example of the guy who thinks the tiger is a cuddly pussy cat. Lets just go along with his groundbreaking theory on how beliefs are formed... In order for the man to acquire this false belief he would have met a tiger that wasn't hostile to him when he approached it. This belief could not form in the mind spontaneously unless it was due to some external stimuli. I think Plantinga misconstrues the change in genetic freqeuncy with pragmatic mind beliefs.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
The biochemical explanation of what is happening inside your body at any given time is not the same thing as the content of a belief. Plantinga's argument is that it would be perfectly plausible within a naturalistic framework for false beliefs to have beneficial adaptive behavioural traits attached to them, which would be "selected for" in this evolutionary context. Seems good to me, since that's how naturalists believe our cognitive faculties evolved. Disdain doesn't amount to an argument.
athlete117 1 year ago
@athlete117 I did not make an argument you are absolutely right. I assume that evolution is true. You missed the point of the video, I titled the video 'Alvin is an expert of evolution' because that is precisely what he isn't, he is an ID theorist. And my objective was to demonstrate how someone who lacks a basic understanding of modern biology ends up making a fool of himself. Now I see you actually hold this argument to be valid. I have seen this argument refuted in many forms but its...
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic very simple to refute. Plantinga is straw-manning how beliefs are actually formed, anyone with a rudimentarry understanding of cognition knows that . He completely misrepresents how the brain forms beliefs. I can promise you that absolutely nobody holds to the beliefs represented by Plantinga at any scientific level. You won't find any scientific literature supporting what he says. I can send you some articles on the limits of cogntive modality via pm if you want.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago
@ChiefRepublic Let me be clear I'm not talking about his Christian beliefs or anything like that but the contention that beliefs are hard-wired into the brain. This is a very complex issue and his complete disregard of that is what annoys me. You can't just bastardize a whole science for a silly philosophical argument especially when you in this day and age believe that the process in question (evolution) is false.
ChiefRepublic 1 year ago