What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? (Alvin Plantinga)

http://closertotruth.com - PBS' Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga (often named as the most important living philosopher of religion today) about evolution's incompatibility with naturalism.

Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3126C427470E010B

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyQ5cFIoKts

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism the lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTln0akSdhc

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Alvin
• Plantinga
• Evolutionary
• Argument
• Against
• Naturalism
• Evolution
• Atheism
• Natural
• Selection
• Atheists
• Charles
• Darwin
• Religion
• Philosophy
• Science
• Darwinism
• rfvidz
• drcraigvideos

[JesusxXxLovesxXxYou]

This is pretty simple to understand, and he makes a good point; however it's not the strongest argument, it's more of a loop hole.

Premise 1:If naturalism+ evolution = true

Premise 2:then the likelihood of our cognitive faculties being reliable should be low because natural selection doesn't favor true propositions, it favors reliable propositions based on the necessity of survival.

So to make an argument for naturalistic evolution knowing these 2 premises, is inherently futile.

[rfvidz]

@JesusxXxLovesxXxYou I think your premise 1 should read: If naturalism + evolution = survival value. Evolution doesn't give you truth value. At least not necessarily. The probability is far too low.

[elitegumby]

This is an excellent argument from Plantinga. Although, it certainly took some time for my cognitive faculties to process it lol. There was one argument however, that I think we should anticipate in response to this. Even if our cognitive faculties were just a result of natural selection and random mutation etc... Couldn't you still make the argument that since other human beings around us have similar perceptions of reality, it is logical to conclude that our cognitive faculties are reliable?

[rfvidz]

@elitegumby I believe someone asked Dr. Plantinga this question in his lecture. Find the link in the description area.

[1GodOnlyOne]

Alvin Plantinga is so awesome -- please keep uploading his stuff!

[rfvidz]

@1GodOnlyOne I am. I have about 12 more videos of him coming. It's just so funny watching these youtube atheists responding to Plantinga. Do they actually think they have the smarts to understand him? But of course like most morons they google Plantinga's name and see what other better thinking atheists than they are have to say about Plantinga. Oddly enough, they don't have much to say anyway.

[BronyEditor]

@zarkoff45 And you fail to refute it. :-)

[BronyEditor]

@zarkoff45 And you fail to refute it. :-)

[jimangmay]

@jmoney0461

Plantinga argues that in a truly naturalistic world, or according to the worldview of naturalism, ALL of our behaviors AND our beliefs would be the result of the neurology in our brains. You are changing one of his premises to make your argument. Can naturalism allow for beliefs affecting behaviors?

All normal humans believe what you do - that our beliefs affect our actions, but does naturalism give us rational grounds to make this assumption?

[jmoney0461]

The conclusion seems to be that evolution alone could give rise to faculties that produce mostly true beliefs.

Thoughts?

[jmoney0461]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Plantinga seems to imply that if our rational faculties were only caused by naturalistic evolution, then we have no reason to think that they produce true beliefs.

That is, true beliefs are not necessary in causing evolutionarily fit behavior.

But this seems to be wrong as long as we assume that our beliefs cause our actions. If I have a false belief about catching prey (for instance) this will probably translate into unfit behavior.

[dfpolis]

@elitegumby The question is not whether our faculties are in fact reliable. The question is whether naturalism has any rational explanation or gives us any reason to believe they are reliable. Plantinga is happy to go on and say, yes they are reliable, but this makes much more sense in the context of theism than naturalism. Peace, DP

[Christlovesanimals]

@zarkoff45 and not very well at all.

[zarkoff45]

I dealt with Plantinga's argument here:

watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas

[okara83]

@JesusxXxLovesxXxYou You're stuck in a ignorance loop... Nice intro to logic and reasoning analysis... lol