Content deleted Content added
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) →Plantinga: I don't think that our specie is a paragon of rationality |
Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 176:
:ID is a form of antievolutionism. {{tq|he never objected against evolution}} contradicts the following sentence {{tq|He already stated that his belief in intelligent design}}. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]])
::Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution, and remains skeptical about intelligent design as science. He talks like a philosopher, not like a scientist. And, yes, if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on. Most humans have never attained the full-blown rationality demanded by embracing modern science. I don't think that our specie is a paragon of rationality. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 20:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Plantinga does not exactly deny evolution}} Neither does ID.
:::{{tq|if he means that epistemic responsibility is scarce in humans, he is spot on}} He does not mean that. He uses that as a sort of reductio ad absurdum: if naturalism were true, it would mean that people's thinking is not reliable, which would mean that you cannot rely on... naturalism! His reasoning is full of holes and really stupid: you do not need naturalism to derive that, as you say, people's thinking is indeed not reliable. And picking naturalism as the thing that you cannot rely on at the end is purely arbitrary.
:::I had no problem with deleting Plantinga back then (see [[#Is it fair to include Plantinga on this page?]], contribution from June 2023), but consensus seemed in favor of keeping him. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||