Sunday, August 17, 2008

Plantinga Argument Against Naturalism

Plantinga argues: "the probability that our minds are reliable under a conjunction of naturalism and evolution is low or inscrutable. Therefore, to assert that naturalistic evolution is true also asserts that one has a low or unknown probability of being right."

So, if naturalistic evolution is true, then Plantinga's mind is not reliable. He has a low probability of being right about anything.

Therefore, we should reject his argument, as it is most probably wrong.

1 comment:

SirMoogie said...

One of my theist friends tried this against me, and I came to the same conclusion. The argument drives us into accepting or rejecting any argument on whim. After he accepted this, he still asked me to demonstrate why I think we should rely on anything that we create. I explained I don't think this, but I do think the scientific method is the best approach and why that approach trumps theism, despite coming from the (alleged) same source. In retrospect, I don't think they do come from the same source, both are learned in different ways, they just get represented in the same material (i.e., the brain).