Friday, May 12, 2017

Plantinga on God and Materialism

Here. 

13 comments:

Jimmy S. M. said...

Re: 1 & 4

It's often alleged that Dawkins is out of his league in serious philosophical discussion. I would submit that Plantinga is equally out of his depth in evolutionary biology.

Mortal said...

I agree with Plantinga that the existence of evil is one of the strongest arguments around for the existence of God.

Joe Hinman said...

Jimmy S. M. said...
Re: 1 & 4

It's often alleged that Dawkins is out of his league in serious philosophical discussion. I would submit that Plantinga is equally out of his depth in evolutionary biology.

I think that is a mistake,I really don't mean to offend you,I'm not questioning your intelligence.You may know more philosophy than I do for all i know, But I think it may be that you are unused to philosophical thinking abut scientific subject matter. Most discussions about problems of scientific methodology boarder upon philosophy of science,

Jimmy S. M. said...

Joe, go ahead and call me stupid if it makes you feel better. Plantinga raising philosophical objections to empirical questions makes as much sense, to me, as demanding empirical evidence for philosophical claims. This is about as interesting as a philosophical argument that whales aren't mammals. Yes, there are philosophy of science questions that underlie such an inquiry- what is a mammal, what ontological status does an animal class have? But trying to muddy the waters with those questions when there is an answer that relevant experts agree on just isn't a very interesting topic. I don't think the projects of investigating the roots of animal intelligence, or neuroscience are under any threat from Plantinga's arguments.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe, go ahead and call me stupid if it makes you feel better.

so when I try to be nice I'm being mean? how do you get"you are stupid" out of "I don't mean to offend you?"


Plantinga raising philosophical objections to empirical questions makes as much sense, to me, as demanding empirical evidence for philosophical claims. This is about as interesting as a philosophical argument that whales aren't mammals. Yes, there are philosophy of science questions that underlie such an inquiry- what is a mammal, what ontological status does an animal class have? But trying to muddy the waters with those questions when there is an answer that relevant experts agree on just isn't a very interesting topic. I don't think the projects of investigating the roots of animal intelligence, or neuroscience are under any threat from Plantinga's arguments.

his argumemt is not about disproving evolution, he does not argue evolution didn't happen.It's disproof of naturalism;naturalism is an ideology it's a philosophical idea it's not empirical.

Joe Hinman said...

God is not just another thing in the universe

God is not merely a plausible explanation but God is truth

Jimmy S. M. said...

"his argument is not about disproving evolution, he does not argue evolution didn't happen."

I know. He also believes in an empirically undetectable sensus divinitatis that can affect physical brain states, very interesting guy.

"It's disproof of naturalism;naturalism is an ideology it's a philosophical idea it's not empirical."

These 2 questions- "why do humans prefer order over chaos", or "why would evolution result in reliable cognitive abilities" are empirical questions: scientists(biologists and neuroscientists especially) can and do investigate these questions under the paradigm of methodological naturalism. He's free to argue they're wasting their time, I suppose.

Joe Hinman said...

These 2 questions- "why do humans prefer order over chaos", or "why would evolution result in reliable cognitive abilities" are empirical questions: scientists(biologists and neuroscientists especially) can and do investigate these questions under the paradigm of methodological naturalism. He's free to argue they're wasting their time, I suppose.

But they don;t have answers. In fact the direction they've gone in reduces reason and consciousness to deterministic chemicals. reason has nothing to do with anything now,we can assume don't have reason.

Jimmy S. M. said...

"But they [don't] have answers."

There's biological & psychological hypotheses I find convincing, that would address these issues. They involve our ability to detect patterns, our brains are primarily pattern recognition and prediction engines.


"In fact the direction they've gone in reduces reason and consciousness to deterministic chemicals"

Sure, why not. So what?

Joe Hinman said...

My answers to Jeff Lowder's questions, Jeff Lowder at the Secular Outpost has 25 questions for theists They are not intended to be tricks or rhetorical but to drive home his point about his probability argument,

Lowder says of his questions:
Many people incorrectly assumed that the list was supposed to function as a list of “gotcha!” questions. Even our own Keith Parsons commented, “Any Bible-believing Christian could easily answer these.” Sure enough, many did. It’s easy to invent “just-so,” ad hoc explanations for why, if God exists, God allowed some fact F to obtain. But that is of very little philosophical interest. (More on that in a moment.) But even more important, it misses the point....

Each question is a specific instance of a more generic ‘meta-question’: “Which explanatory hypothesis, naturalism or theism, is the best explanation?” For details, see “Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments.” That page lays out the schema for all of my evidential arguments.
Lowder's major point is a huge probability argument in which he shows over and over again in a variety of ways that reality is more easily explained by naturalism and thus it is more probable as an explanation.I contend that the argumemt, like the questions primarily reflect what Tillich calls the "surface level" being thus of course they reflect naturalism because he's not examining areas where supernature is an issue, Hopefully this will be seen in the answers I give. I will only do half the questions this time.

Let's play 20 questions

Joe Hinman said...

that previous post is not irrelevant because it is about naturalism and how it is that God creates a world that appears toe only naturalistic.

Joe Hinman said...

Jimmy S. M. said...
"But they [don't] have answers."

There's biological & psychological hypotheses I find convincing, that would address these issues. They involve our ability to detect patterns, our brains are primarily pattern recognition and prediction engines.



yopu've just explained away randomr no pattern.

Joe Hinman said...

JSM I answered you on my blog