Alvin Plantinga proposes an argument against naturalism, discrediting Richard Dawkins theory of naturalism. His argument against Dawkins offers another theory that sets out to disprove Dawkins own theory. Plantinga’s first point is that Dawkins is not even a philosopher but a biologist. His argument starts out that Dawkins does not have expertise on this subject and therefore we must not expect much from what he is saying. Dawkins believes that if God existed, he would be complex and that the more complex something is, the less probable it is. Therefore, Dawkins concludes that the theory of evolution shows that the world was not created by anyone, especially God. Plantinga then remarks that perhaps a supreme being, such as God, could have regulated …show more content…
Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists in the world today is just material and physical matter. That there is no God but evolution and all of our experiences are simply physiological reactions. In order to completely understand Plantinga’s argument against naturalism, we must first define naturalism itself. Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists in the world today is just material and physical matter. That there is no God but evolution and all of our experiences are simply physiological reactions. Plantinga’s own specific argument against this belief of naturalism is that God is probable and indeed a complex being who created the world. After refuting Dawkins definition of complexity in relation to God, Plantinga sets out to invalidate the theory that God is improbable. Plantinga argues that if God is a necessary being, then the probability that he does exist is extremely high. Dawkins believes that God is improbable along with theism; it is unlikely that a person such as God exists if materialism is true, because it logically entails that there is no such person as God. But Plantinga brings up the question that argues that theism is improbable also because materialism is true. Plantinga points out that if Dawkins proposes that God’s existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
Gould continues his base argument on NOMA by comparing religion against science and some of the past disputes between the two subjects. He compares the ideas of an absent clock-winder, to that of one that is ever-present to press it upon the hour to make it chime, which alludes to a later argument of intelligent design versus natural development. (Pg. 49-95) After the clock-makers discussion, Gould discusses two of the largest figures in evolutionary biology, Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley, and a liberal clergyman, Charles Kingsley. Gould talks about the correspondence between Huxley and Kingsley, where Kingsley reaches out to his skeptical friend Huxley with faith and Huxley retorts in turn with natural science against religion. Huxley thanks Kingsley for his condolences, but argues against immortality for humans but not for the rest of the natural world, when humans are but an insignificant speck in the whole of the natural world. Hu...
In chapter one of “The Selfish Gene,” Dawkins speaks about how Darwin was the first person to develop a good theory to answer the question of “why are people?” he goes on to explain how Darwin explained that evolution occurs when a person has the qualities that allow humans to survive at the expense of other individuals. In addition, he writes of how Darwin explains how to pass on genes, generation after generation, through offspring. Everyone knows of Darwin’s theory of evolution, but Dawkins tries to introduce a particular interpretation of the evolutionary process. He believes that evolution should not be studied at the level of singular individuals or groups, but instead at the level of genes. He also believed that there are two main characteristics of genes manifested during the struggle for survi...
The main driving element in William Morris’s life has been the nature around him and the houses he lived in. The most prominent influence was the Kelmscott Manor. Therefore, I chose to go with Kelmscott Manor’s layout plan that exhibits the “inspirational garden “ that led to most of his design decisions, a map that depicts the pockets in the manor and how Morris was inspired by it. In addition to this, an original drawing of the Kelmscott Manor’s exterior that depicts how the manor amalgamated within the garden. To reinforce this, I picked a watercolor of the Kelmscott Manor and a photo that captivates the various perspectives of the garden in the manor. Moving on to his designs that interprets his love for nature I picked up the very first of his wallpaper design of the trellis that has a very naturalistic touch to it with the vines which seemed to be an extension of the “inspiration garden” on to the paper. Also chose one of the wallpapers he designed during the middle of his lifetime and one of his last designs as well. The underlying concept behind picking those was to outline the consistency in his design concept throughout his life. William Morris was a poet , whose poetry and compositions were also inspired by nature, and to depict his poetry in form of naturalism concept I picked a stance from one of his compositions that talks about forest, flora and fauna which directly ties to his underlying concept. Also the compositions he wrote always had engraved borders which was ...
For Dawkins, evolution of a species is dependent upon the transmittance of this information to the next generation; the individual species is irrelevant (2). This theory is a departure from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which concentrates on the species. Species, to Dawkins, are "survival machines" whose purpose is to host these genes, as species are mortals and fleeting, whereas genes are not (2).
Naturalism emphasizes that the universe is a vast machine or organism, without any general purpose. Naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic god. Naturalists not only hold that the view that evidence for the supernatural has not been convincingly demonstrated, but also think that the belief in supernatural has lead to a great deal of misery for humanity and thus needs to be rejected and replaced with critical inquiry, accountability, and
...empt to impute the difficulty of imagining evolutionary pathways to the critic. The only difference is that Dawkins' version is more aggressively ad hominem. However, the fault does not lie in the critic but in the Continuum Argument. It is not the critic's job to imagine evolutionary pathways; it is the believer's job to demonstrate them without resorting to just-so stories. The philosopher David Hume once argued that we can imagine rabbits coming into existence out of nowhere, and he concluded from this that there is nothing contradictory in the notion that something can come from nothing. Now we certainly can form a mental image of rabbits coming from nowhere, as we can for the transformation of a lensless eye to a lensed eye or a steam engine to a warp engine, but we are not obliged to accept a necessary connection between our mental images and external reality.
According to Michael Polanyi, our understanding of a concept depends in part on the language we use to describe it. Connie Barlow's book, From Gaia to Selfish Genes, looks at metaphors in science as integral parts of some new biological theories. One example is Richard Dawkins' theory about the selfish gene, where he claims that the most basic unit of humanity, the gene, is a selfish entity unto itself that exists outside the realm of our individual good and serves its own distinct purpose. Dawkins looks at the evolutionary process, how DNA replicates in forming human life, and the possibility that there is a social parallel to genetics, where human traits can be culturally transmitted. Dawkins, in the excerpts that Barlow has chosen, uses heavily metaphoric language to explain these scientific concepts to the general public. However, the language that Dawkins uses, while thought provoking, also carries some negative implications that extend beyond his theory. The selfish gene theory has many positive aspects, but its metaphors detract in certain ways from the scientific message of Richard Dawkins.
In Dawkins’ novel, he aims to prove how the explanation is not a religious answer but a biological and cumulative natural selection. According to Dawkins, the theory of Darwinism is what changed the mystery of our...
Another counter-argument to the argument from design is evolutionary theory or Darwinism. This theory explains the appearance of biological design in nature (Himma). Scientists have demonstrated that the chemical origin of life is compatible with certain natural laws. Scientists have also explained the mechanisms by which life developed from simple to complex and how it continues to develop. The most important factor is that blind chance is not the only alternative to divine design; it is instead the cumulative process of natural selection. Therefore, the theory of evolution provides a much more convincing explanation that the argument from design because science provides a workable and testable explanation of how complexity came from simplicity.
To conclude, naturalism has many definitions and characteristics. It was a powerful movement which suggested the role and influence of the environment, one’s background, and one’s social status had in shaping human character. The major characteristics of it include the environments power or control over humans, objective science, instinct, pessimism, and detachment.
Plantinga’s Free Will defense could defend the aspect of why God should allow there to be moral evils in the world, but there is no explanation or evidence for God to allow there to be natural evils. Who is Plantinga or anyone to know what God in truth is allowing or not. No one is God, we don’t know his reasoning behind his actions but all we do know is what attributes he has. And the attributes of a person or a being like God show the character and being God wants to be and everyone he creates. Andrea M. Weisberger sums up the reason for the Problem of Evil to be successful best when she states: “Both natural evil, the suffering that occurs as a result of physical phenomena, and moral evil, the suffering resulting from human action, comprise the problem of evil.
Naturalism is about bringing humans into the “natural world”. We, as humans, are seen as aspects of nature collectively not separate like they once were. “Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself ” (“A Guide for Naturalism”). Humans are like “animals” they contain the same drives that animals have. They are just plain “natural”. Many authors express naturalism in their writings such as Kate Chopin. She expresses a naturalistic view on sexual drives which classify her as a naturalistic writer.
The play, Proof by David Auburn, can be analyzed or viewed in a particular matter using how characters’ act and the point of view from which Auburn wants viewers to see play. Auburn’s play is analyzed as being a play of Naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophical point of view relating to everything that is from natural properties and causes. (Literary Devices) Naturalism is based on the attitude or role an associate has about their identity in a nation and an action that takes place to sustain a form of social sovereignty. (Literary Devices) In the play, there are wondering questions regarding the male’s role and self-power that are influenced by the philosophy of the environment and heredity. Exceedingly, the play has the idea that is described
Talking on both sides of the debate, each side feels as though the other has no scientific reasoning come up with their theory. In reading the article written by Shipman, the evolutionists believe that intelligent design has no concrete evidence on how the world was crea...