Theism, Naturalism, and Rationality - Discussion Part 2

  Рет қаралды 5,466

Berkley Center

Berkley Center

11 жыл бұрын

For more on the Religious Freedom Project, visit: berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp
For more on the Berkley Center, visit: berkleycenter.georgetown.edu
For Part 1 of this discussion, visit: bit.ly/1dOucGx
January 7, 2012 | Standing Seminar: Theism, Naturalism, and Rationality
Alvin Plantinga is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. One of the most important living philosophers of religion, he is credited with helping revive Christian philosophy. Acclaimed for his work on metaphysics, the problem of evil, and the epistemology of religious belief, he is the author or editor of many books, including God and Other Minds, The Nature of Necessity, Faith and Rationality, and a major trilogy on "Warrant" which argues, among many other things, that belief in God is "properly basic."
Ernest Sosa is the Board of Governors Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburg in 1964 and taught at Brown University for four decades before moving to Rutgers in 2007. Professor Sosa focuses primarily on epistomology. His recent publications include Knowing Full Well (Princeton University Press, 2011) and Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume One (Oxford University Press, 2009)

Пікірлер: 15
@tonechavi2760
@tonechavi2760 9 жыл бұрын
enjoyed the talk, happy it ended with a chuckle. I wonder what else I can find after watching this
@Mentat1231
@Mentat1231 10 жыл бұрын
I'm sorry I didn't notice this response before, but you seem to be missing two very important points here: 1) Whether or not our belief in R is a case of knowledge is highly dependent on R itself. Therefore, presuming R is begging the question. 2) N&E, if true, would constitute the "grand story", so to speak. They would be a complete account of both the origin and the essential nature of our cognitive faculties themselves. Trenton's cases were disanalogous precisely because of this difference.
@Mentat1231
@Mentat1231 11 жыл бұрын
It seems odd that Trenton didn't think to modify his question about "for all Q,if P(R|Q) is low, then the believer in Q has a defeater for for R" to "for all Q, if P(R|Q) is low, and we don't know anything else relevant to R, except Q, then the believer in Q has a defeater for R". I just find that obvious, which is probably why Plantinga didn't think to explicitly state it.
@Mentat1231
@Mentat1231 10 жыл бұрын
The implication of my original post was that N&E constitutes all the relevant knowledge we can have on R. That it's a "grand story" is just the reason WHY it constitutes all our relevant knowledge of R. What else could we know about our cognitive faculties, in addition to N&E, which would add anything relevant to the discussion? I've addressed in point #1 that R itself can't be considered.
@AnthonyBigg
@AnthonyBigg 11 жыл бұрын
@Mentat1231 The problem with that revision would be that it could not be employed in any EAAN style argument. The reason would be that, for it to be useful, you would have to show that the naturalist does not know anything relevant to R (i.e. that we have reliable faculties). But of course, R itself is relevant to R, so you would have to show that the naturalist does not know R, *independent of* the low probability claim, and hence independent of N&E, and that defeats the purpose of the argument
@fahimp3
@fahimp3 5 жыл бұрын
26:52 That is a very key point.
@AnthonyBigg
@AnthonyBigg 10 жыл бұрын
On your 2), note that this brings up new issues not raised in your original comment and so cannot be used legitimately to critique *my critique of your stated thesis*. But anyway, working with this grand story thing, maybe you want to add a clause to your thesis which says "and Q is explanatorily relevant to R". That seems to also have problems. Consider P(Obama is president | the president is determined by a democratic vote). This is a Merricks style counterexample to your revised thesis
@Mentat1231
@Mentat1231 10 жыл бұрын
To your critique (and character limits may require a few posts on my part as well): That Q is explanatorily relevant to R is implied by the phrase "except Q" in my original statement. To your counter-example: The probability that Obama is president given only the fact that presidents are elected by vote is indeed low. I'll call it P(O|V). But surely V isn't the only relevant fact that can be known with respect to O. To make this analogous to P(R|N&E) you'd need to make "V" much bigger.
@AnthonyBigg
@AnthonyBigg 10 жыл бұрын
I should add, but character limits restricted me, that of course this is my presentation of what I take to be your revised thesis. I don't want to strawman you so I want to be explicit that I am offering a counterexample to *what I take to be* your new thesis
@Mentat1231
@Mentat1231 10 жыл бұрын
By "bigger", I mean that you should make it "P(O|V*)" where V* is the knowledge that presidents are elected by democratic vote AND that the democratic vote was certainly in Obama's favor during the past election. There is nothing more to know about the matter (just as in the case of N&E's grand story), and so there is nothing we can add which would change this result (that O is a warranted belief).
@lwf975
@lwf975 11 жыл бұрын
It seems .... The theists choose to believe in god on the premise of " not knowing" specific causations of nature, therefore inserting a God figure brings an equilibrium to their consciences... I see no actual attaching "proofs" brought to the argument, the reasoning for rationality is a subjective need for answers before humanities ability for accurate answers are discovered.. ( god needs proven "before" used as a means )
@internetenjoyer1044
@internetenjoyer1044 Жыл бұрын
that's..not what Plantinga's Evolutionary argument against naturalism is trying to do at all. It is essentially making a sceptical argument against rational knowledge if we assume athiesm and then using that scepticism to attack the premise that we can rationally say athiesm is true, whilst proposing that the general skeptical argument against knowledge doesnt arise if thiesm is true. I dont know if it works but it's a fascinating argument. It's not just invoking God becuase of "not knowing causations of nature" to "bring equilibrium to their consciences" (whatever that means)
@Raiddd__
@Raiddd__ 8 ай бұрын
Agree with internet enjoyer. The evolutionary argument against naturalism literally starts with the premise assuming that naturalism and evolution are both true. Aka God doesn’t exist and we evolved so all our actions are ultimately determined by arbitrary / random prior causes that necessarily select for survival and not truth. The result of this is that since you can’t take something not made to discover truth to be reliable for that purpose, that thus you have a defeater for all your beliefs GIVEN evolution a naturalism…. Including evolution and naturalism!
@electrifyeverything6454
@electrifyeverything6454 8 жыл бұрын
Take out all of the theological nonsense about "the fall" and replace "God" with a monistic view of the universe and I agree with Plantinga.
Theism, Naturalism, and Rationality - Alvin Plantinga
1:01:39
Berkley Center
Рет қаралды 23 М.
Christian, Evolutionist, or Both?
26:46
Calvin University
Рет қаралды 8 М.
Finger Heart - Fancy Refill (Inside Out Animation)
00:30
FASH
Рет қаралды 29 МЛН
ЧУТЬ НЕ УТОНУЛ #shorts
00:27
Паша Осадчий
Рет қаралды 10 МЛН
Ouch.. 🤕
00:30
Celine & Michiel
Рет қаралды 26 МЛН
Simply Christian | N.T. Wright at Georgetown
49:52
The Veritas Forum
Рет қаралды 30 М.
Dr. Peter Kreeft on Angels & Demons: Who They Are, and How They Influence Us
46:37
Catholic Diocese of Arlington
Рет қаралды 121 М.
Habermas: Religion in the Public Sphere (2005)
4:47
Philosophical Bachelor
Рет қаралды 1,2 М.
Daniel Dennett vs Alvin Plantinga Debate REMASTERED
1:47:22
Capturing Christianity
Рет қаралды 28 М.
Interview with Alvin Plantinga
17:16
Eerdmans
Рет қаралды 15 М.
Baylor Department of Philosophy discussion with Alvin Plantinga
1:31:33
Smithsonian Part One - Christianity’s Most Important Convert
1:10:20
Bart D. Ehrman
Рет қаралды 109 М.
Alvin Plantinga, "Augustinian Christian Philosophy"
54:58
The Philosophy Department at Trinity Christian College
Рет қаралды 41 М.
Alvin Plantinga: Science & Religion: Where the Conflict Really Lies
1:26:48