Skip to content

Teleological Blog

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." — Francis Crick

  • Evidence for Design
  • Atheism’s Trojan Horse
  • Darwinian Biases
  • teleologist’s theology
  • Toggle search form

Can Dawkins Survive Plantinga

Posted on October 30, 2006 By donaldm 3 Comments on Can Dawkins Survive Plantinga

NOTE: This is a re-post from an earlier OP that was lost due to the recent crash of the host server for our blog. Since I didn’t keep a copy, this is a close reconstruction from memory as to what I originally wrote and the point I wanted to make. I believe Teleologist still has the orginal comments to this OP and will add them back in.
Donald M

__________________

Richard Dawkins is on a crusade to destroy religion and any concepts of God. At least, that’s the message of his newest book, The God Delusion. Dawkins, being the village atheist from Oxford that he is, just can’t help being postively euphoric over the wonders of science and the ability of reason to explain, well, everything. Everything, that is, except the premise itself. (Oops!!!)

In Dawkins worldview everything, absolutely everything, is explanable as the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving and acting over eons of time through chance and necessity or their combination. Of course, taken to its logical conclusion, this means that we humans also arrived on the scene as a result of those same processes, and further that the cognative faculties we posses also arrived by that route. But surely there is a problem here for Dawkins and his like-minded atheistic philosophical naturalists.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame (go Irish!!!), posits what seems to be an insurmountable challenge to this naturalistic premise. In a lecture called An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism Plantinga basically argues that philosophical naturalism coupled with evolution presents a real dilemma for the naturalist. Why? Because if we and our cognative faculties really are the end result of the aforementioned blind, purposeless forces, then we have no good reason to think that those faculties have as one of their primary functions the formation of true belief, including the belief that naturalism (or atheism) is true. At best this means that the Darwinian naturalist ought to be agnostic towards any belief she holds as true; at worst it means that she ought to reject the premise outright. Either way,the argument is in trouble.

I’d love to see a live debate between Dawkins and Plantinga on this very question!!

Related posts:

Lee Spetner's Not by Chance
Nested Hieararchy
Dembski's sense of humor
Darwinism

Post navigation

Previous Post: RNA Disney World
Next Post: The “Science” of Richard Dawkins

Comments (3) on “Can Dawkins Survive Plantinga”

  1. scordova says:
    October 31, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    Nor did I see how, on a materialist basis, knowledge or thought was possible. The light which reaches my eyes causes nervous impulses in about half-a-million fibres running to my brain, and there gives rise to sensation. But how can the sensation be anything like a reality composed of atoms! And, even if it is so, what guarantee have I that my thoughts are logical! They depend on physical and chemical processes going on in my brain, and doubtless obey physical and chemical laws, if materialism is true. So I was compelled, rather reluctantly, to fall back on some kind of idealistic explanation, according to which mind (or something like mind) was prior to matter, and what we call matter was really of the nature of mind, or at least of sensation.

    From evolutionist JBS Haldane: Why I am a Materialist

  2. teleologist says:
    November 1, 2006 at 6:42 am

    I’ve always thought that Plantinga is brilliant. What’s interesting is that Plantinga gave this talk back in 1994, twelve years ago. It just shows that philosophy should be left to the professionals or at least out of the hands of the mentally deranged, like Dawkins. It is like putting matches in the hands of a child.

    Atheists like Dawkins and his clone PZ Myers woefully ignorant and lack any modicum of logic when it comes to their religious fixation. They are like The Stillborn Atheist. To borrow a phrase from Nicholson from A Few Good Men, Dawkins don’t want the truth because he can’t handle the truth. Instead Dawkins and Myers would prefer to commit rational suicide.

    P.S. Thanks for the link. There are some other good speakers on there.

  3. DonaldM says:
    November 1, 2006 at 8:56 am

    It just shows that philosophy should be left to the professionals or at least out of the hands of the mentally deranged, like Dawkins. It is like putting matches in the hands of a child.

    I’ve thought of introducing some new figures of speech:
    “Faster than Richard Dawkins can make an illogical argument” or
    “As easy as refuting Richard Dawkins”

    Whaddya think?

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • Darwinism : Just Another Magic Show
  • Darwinian Evolution Means No Change Over Time
  • Review of The Reviews on Ham-Nye Debate
  • Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye. Why?
  • Darwin’s Other Doubt

Recent Comments

  • Darwinian Evolution Means No Change Over Time » Teleological Blog on Evidence for Design
  • teleologist on Review of The Reviews on Ham-Nye Debate
  • sosalty on Review of The Reviews on Ham-Nye Debate
  • The Anatomy of Darwinism (Part 2) » Teleological Blog on The Avalos’ Bash
  • teleologist on Review of The Reviews on Ham-Nye Debate

Archives

  • September 2016
  • February 2015
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • July 2013
  • January 2013
  • September 2012
  • May 2010
  • September 2009
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004

Categories

  • Atheism
  • Biology
  • blog specific issues
  • Creationism
  • Darwinism
  • Dstortions
  • Education
  • entertainment
  • Evolution
  • Holidays
  • Humor
  • Intelligent Design
  • Liberal-Humanism
  • OEC
  • Philosophy
  • Theology
  • Uncategorized
  • YEC

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2023 Teleological Blog.

Powered by PressBook WordPress theme