The main criticism seems to be that Plantinga, in his review, makes provocative claims with insufficient supporting arguments. But I think this ignores the fact that Plantinga is alluding to heavily vetted arguments which he has used in the past.
The other thing the negative reviews ignore is that Platinga didn't really *need* to make the case for the evolutionary argument against naturalism in this instance, because Dawkins handed Platinga the rope to hang him with by stating himself that it was unlikely undirected evolution had geared us towards the ascertaining of objective truth.
Nope. It just means that football, per se, is not a non-rational behavior. {g} (Thus not soley a product of non-rational behaviors.)
That being said, arguments about truth are a bit more fundamental in topic than football. {s} In this case, Dawkins makes appeals to types of behaviors, in his own estimations, which are not the sort of behaviors he himself has to admit 'evolution' would kit us up with. (His infamous million-century-old alien illustration from TBW being a prime example of this. Has he upgraded that any since his failure to revise it in 1996?)
9 comments:
I look forward to your review of Plantinga's review since it's attracting so much negative criticism.
The main criticism seems to be that Plantinga, in his review, makes provocative claims with insufficient supporting arguments. But I think this ignores the fact that Plantinga is alluding to heavily vetted arguments which he has used in the past.
Yes. If he's presenting the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, then there's a whole book full of debate on the subject.
Where can I find the original source of the review?
As I recall, the combox over at Prosthesis tracks down the original source.
The other thing the negative reviews ignore is that Platinga didn't really *need* to make the case for the evolutionary argument against naturalism in this instance, because Dawkins handed Platinga the rope to hang him with by stating himself that it was unlikely undirected evolution had geared us towards the ascertaining of objective truth.
Undirected evolutionary selection has not geared us in the direction of being able to convert a 4 and 1.
Does that mean that human beings cannot play football?
Nope. It just means that football, per se, is not a non-rational behavior. {g} (Thus not soley a product of non-rational behaviors.)
That being said, arguments about truth are a bit more fundamental in topic than football. {s} In this case, Dawkins makes appeals to types of behaviors, in his own estimations, which are not the sort of behaviors he himself has to admit 'evolution' would kit us up with. (His infamous million-century-old alien illustration from TBW being a prime example of this. Has he upgraded that any since his failure to revise it in 1996?)
JRP
Thanks for providing such a great site. I'll be coming back regularly to see what's new. Thanks Again
Post a Comment