Talk:Alvin Plantinga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Influence on Other Theists

I cleaved a sentence from the first paragraph, "Plantinga's works are often considered to be responsible for the resurgence of theist philosophy in recent years," because it violates the weasel terms policy of WikiProject Philosphy. Upon proper citing of those who "often consider" this should be reinstated.

The claim follows from the verifiable fact that his work on his respective interests has either been widely discussed with respect by philosophers, or has become largely normative. Whether it is the argument against naturalism, the free will defense, the ontological argument, discussion of actualism, etc., Plantinga's work has been significant in this regard. Dextris Dei 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

According to his autobiography, his education was a bit more complex than it is made to seem here. He attended Jamestown College for one semester Fall 1949. Then When his father was offered a job at Calvin he moved there and attended for the following semester before being offered the scholarship at Harvard. I know these details seems trivial, but since he is such a major figure in contemporary Philosophy, it seems as if it should be shown that he did go straight to Harvard.--Bkcraft 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Plantinga is listed as having studied w/ Nancy Cartwright at Michigan- that can't be right- she's much younger than he is and earned her PhD from Illinois-Chicago.

It was Richard Cartwright not Nancy Cartwright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.65 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


As far as I know, Harvard itself doesn't give scholarships. They only offer financial aid. (Their argument: "All of our students deserve scholarships.") However, it is possible he got a scholarship from other organization for which he used to attend Harvard.

But was that the case in the 40s? — goethean ॐ 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] evolutionary argument against naturalism

I have re-added material to this article that was removed from the Naturalism (philosophy) article. Plantinga's paper was deemed "a bad source" by User:Daelin. Of course, this contradicts that fact that Wikipedia is supposed to document, rather than take a side on, philosophical issues. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argument that evolutionary naturalism is incoherent

Any chance that the paragraph could be expanded beyond two quotes from other people? What is the nature of Plantinga's argument? Guettarda 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that either Plantinga's "evolutionary argument against naturalism" should be made into its own article (since it is both serious and widely discussed in the field), or should be (re?)added to the article on naturalism (philosophy). The alternatives are undesirable; it is of course tedious to include all of a philosopher's arguments in one article, but it is awkward to only include substantive discussion of one. What do you people think? (Also, how do you put in block suggestions into an article? I know nothing about Wikipedia.) Dextris Dei 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've found a reference; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA120.html It seems that Plantinga argument boils down to "an evolved mind is fallible, its conclusions untrustworthy" leading onto "I don't want to have a fallible mind, therefore my mind must have been created". Not making sense? It screams fallacy, but then what did you expect? — Dunc|☺ 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The argument makes perfect sense to me, and your paraphrase certainly does not do it justice. It is unlikely that naturalistically evolved minds would be geared towards truth-finding, especially abstract truth-finding, for the reasons in the Churchland quotation. That is, that naturalistically evolved minds would be geared towards "feeding, fleeing fighting, and reproducing". Not only is it not fallacious, it is very similar, if not identical, to arguments that have led contemporary postmodern philosophers like Richard Rorty to anti-realist epistemological positions. — goethean ॐ 18:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the section should be re-added to the naturalism article. It's deletion was a purely POV move. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Gibberish by any other name. And "Dextris Dei", eh, we're getting bold with the nicks these days, eh? Of course, it blows any chance that the persons contribs will be taken as NPOV.
In any case, Plantinga's argument is asinine, an is a fallacy; "I can't be here for no reason at all, I must have a purpose, thus I had to have been created, and in God's image to boot, and God has a mind and mine must be created just like his was. Ooops, hmmm...er, no...lemme try thisd again..." •Jim62sch• 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be ridiculous to interpret POV issues according to a user name. A better method is: look at the contributions. The name "Dextris Dei," meaning "Right hand of God" in Latin, is quite funny actually, for a Wikipedia username.
As for Plantinga's argument being "asinine," the opinions of those on talk origins, or infidels.org, etc., are completely irrelevant, since there is ample material in actual scholarship on the matter. It is not often that a living (and Christian) philosopher's critique of something a prominent as naturalism elicits an anthology of discussion from reputed scholars. Plantinga's argument has done this. Your reformulation of the argument appears to be a reformulation of a completely different argument. Plantinga is not talking about purpose or being made in God's image and so on. He is demonstrating the low or inscrutible probability of true beliefs being produced by naturalistic mechanism and, furthermore, the irrationality in believing such production has occurred. The Christian "answer" to the problem is an afterthought, but it certainly is interesting for a theistic epistemologist. Surely, if "properly functioning cognitive faculties operating in a congenial epistemic environment with a design plan aimed at truth" have both a powerful and benevolent origin, they are going to be trustworthy (at least, belief in their trustworthiness is warranted). Dextris Dei 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Jim calls religious view gibberish. Stop the presses. — goethean ॐ 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, the issue isn't whether Plantinga is wrong, but whether this particular argument deserves an article in itself, however wrong it might be. I can think of two reasonable justifications for branching off an article: 1) there's too much material to comfortably fit here or 2) the argument is often searched for by people who aren't looking for Plantinga. As far as I can tell, though, neither one of htese possible justifications applies. Do you disagree? Al 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section belongs in the naturalism (philosophy) article. It is, after all, a criticism of philosophical naturalism. — goethean ॐ 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you say so. Frankly, it's really not much of an argument. As with so many of Plantinga's arguments, it's best received by those who already agree with the conclusion, but not necessarily taken all that seriously when preached to those not already in the choir. If we stick it in Naturalism (philosophy), though, it's going to have to deal with the issue of size there. Al 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Every argument is best received by those who accept its conclusion. A notable example is attempts at Ontological arguments. Or, the problem of evil. Anyway, Plantinga's argument is taken seriously in the field, which explains the several peer-reviewed articles on it in secular publications, as well as an entire volume - and all these within the philosopher's lifetime. This cannot be said for the work of near-charlatans like Norman Geisler, to some extent William Lane Craig, etc. We could, perhaps, create an article for the book Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Dextris Dei 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if it were created by an anon would it be deleted as WP:PN? Anyway, what is important is to (1) try to improve the wording of the argument because it's not very well written, and then include critical responses to it. — Dunc|☺ 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Al 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Evidently it could not be reasonably deleted as WP:PN, since both religious and secular peer-reviewed scholarship takes the argument so seriously (despite infidels.org), among Plantinga's other commentary (reformed epistemology, actualism, free will defense, modal logic, etc.). If it goes into a criticisms section in Naturalism, having extensive response to the argument might be too lengthy. This is one reason why making an article for the book itself is a good idea. Dextris Dei 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Naturalism goes to a disambiguation page. Which specific article did you mean? Al 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this whole discussion not about Naturalism (philosophy). Dextris Dei 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Al 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

Not enough citations of those who disagree with or disprove Plantinga's ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs).

You're right. He stands against all of science, so he's got not shortage of detractors. A good starting point is Dennett. Al 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the article is on Alvin Plantinga, it only needs to describe his views. A criticism section would be more appropriate in either a book article on Naturalism Defeated?, an article on the argument itself, or a section in Naturalism (Philosophy), when the argument is eventually re-added there. In any case, the article does at least cite Naturalism Defeated?, which is an overwhelmingly more serious treatment than any commentary you might find by Dan Dennet. Dextris Dei 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even spell his name right, plus your obvious bias, plus your assertion being an undemonstrable universal, makes your view on the matter less than worthless. -- 68.6.55.65 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. If you look at articles like Ayn Rand, you'll see that the criticism is there, not in articles on her various books. Certainly, the contents of Naturalism Defeated? could be summarized briefly, as could any essays by Dennett on the topic. Al 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though Ayn Rand was a charlatan, I would still say that the criticism belongs in the articles on the ideas themselves, since criticism is and should be about arguments and not humans. Dextris Dei 01:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, but for practical reasons, I have to disagree. A philosopher's (or charlatan's) bio page is where a summary of their overall views belongs, and that includes a summary of criticisms. If there's more to be said, it can be broken out into appropriate pages (such as Objectivist philosophy as distinct from Ayn Rand), but that doesn't mean the original page should be silent on the matter. Consider that, for every link you place between the starting point and destination, you lose a large number of readers who just want a brief overview. That's why relegating criticism to sub-articles often serves to minimize criticism. Al 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Al, your last sentence above is the point exactly. I hope you can convince others of that. Criticism of Plantinga belongs on Plantinga's article; anything else is attempting, consciously or otherwise, to stifle disagreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs).
I should clarify that if it's not going to be put into a more relevant article, like Naturalism (Philosophy) or an article on the book, then it will have to go in the Plantinga article. It just seems less-than-desirable. There is a difference, I think, in cases like an article on Immanuel Kant, where criticism ought to be given significant mention, probably because there is after all such a thing as Kantianism. However, in general I would still expect a criticism to be placed in an article on the thing it is criticizing, namely, the argument itself. As for our anonymous friend above, I am not trying to stifle disagreement. What a silly suggestion. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dextris, unless you are a friend or associate of Professor Dennett, calling him "Dan" seems false. And although some might see Plantinga as a charlatan as well, the request for other viewpoints is not an ad hominem attack. We should note that Naturalism Defeated? *is* about his ideas. I've looked at some of your pages external to Wikipedia, and it would seem to me that you are either crazy or that you see irony as the height of humor (not an attack, just an observation)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)

Since he misspelled "Dennett", I'm going to guess he's not a close friend, or even a fan. My take on this was that the use of the overly familiar "Dan" looked like an attempt to diminish his stature. Of course, that's just what it looked like to me; it might not have been his intention at all. Al 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
hahah okay. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not a friend or associate of Professor Dan Dennett. I am a junior studying philosophy at the University of Michigan. Second, I am not aware of any credible sources that consider Plantinga a charlatan. To answer your personal inquiry, indeed I do enjoy faux arguments, satire, and irony (e.g. "Science and Math Defeated!" on my website), influenced primarily by my heroes, Ali G and Stephen Colbert. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem isn't so much that he's a charlatan as it is that he's more a theologian than a philosopher. Al 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
He's a member of the APA and is regularly published in philosophy journals. I think I'll take the opinion of the APA and of the editors of Philosophy and Phenomenological Research over yours. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I know. Why do people keep on saying that he is not a legitimate philosopher, or that he is a theologian of all things. This is completely ridiculous, albeit amusing. Dextris Dei 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Not just a member of the APA. He was president of the Central Division for Pete's sake. Pascal's Revenge 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find merit in Planinga's argument, and I think that evolution is almost self-evidently true. I just don't believe in philosophically naturalistic evolution. So Plantinga's argument is amenable to more than just Evangelicals. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you might want to read it more carefully. It's not really just an attack on (unguided) evolution, but on the principles behind science in general. Essentially, it's an argument for presuppositionalism. Al 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not an attack on the principles behind science at all. What makes you think this? He argues from fairly mundane principles of epistemic justification, that's all. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you reading the same thing I am? He argues for presuppositionalism, which undermines all of science. Al 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Haha yes I am indeed. His argument explicitly, and thoroughly critiques naturalistic evolution as epistemically unwarranted according to his theory of warrant; it further attempts to demonstrate that naturalistic evolution is self-referentially incoherent. As far as I can tell, all of peer-reviewed scholarship understands this. Dextris Dei 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am amenable to having criticism of Plantinga's argument, although I think that a better exposition of it is more important. I havent read the book on the argument yet. I also think that the exposition of the argument should be located at naturalism (philosophy). — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be on point. It doesn't matter who finds his ideas acceptable. I find them risible. But I would also expect Wikipedia to include views contrary to my own, say, a counterview to dialectic monist naturalism (I am a daojia Taoist). It is a matter of presenting a variety of views- and in the article on those espousing the view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)

Plantinga's argument is a criticism of philosophical naturalism, and I see no reason why it should not be presented at that article. Other writers' thoughts are, of course, presented there also. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; but do you not see the reasons for having counterpoints to his 'philosophy' presented in the article on Plantinga, an article which states some of his 'philosophies'? Please do not misunderstand; I'm asking for a rounded view. But I don't want to labour this too much, so I'll stop here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)
No, I disagree. Rebuttals of his argument are also on-topic at the naturalism (philosophy) article. — goethean ॐ 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I would expect Wikipedia to include views that are taken seriously in peer-reviewed scholarship. I'm not sure that includes the views you mention, like Daojia Taoism. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. Most of my comments have been directed toward Goethan's comments, specifically to the idea that Plantinga's ideas are acceptable to those other than evangelicals. I'm inclined to agree with Al on the nature of Plantinga's ideas, and I don't give them much weight; but that is beside the point. If I were trying to end dissent, I'd be looking to remove Plantinga altogether. Instead, let's insure all views are represented. BTW, my comment was intended to show that ideas I might personally hold to be true should be criticised as well, if there is valid criticism of those ideas (I haven't seen much outside of the Chinese religious commnity, but I'll end the digression). Criticism of Plantinga's thought has a place on the article concerning him, full stop. If it should go elsewhere as well, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)
It's perfectly obvious that you and some others don't give Plantinga much weight. It is not perfectly obvious why anyone should pay the slightest attention to your autobiographical comments in this respect. It is obvious that your opinion and feelings are irrelevant, since they are contrary to evidently all peer-reviewed scholarship, as literally five minutes' research into scholarly search engines reveals. Dextris Dei 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The comments were meant for illustration; it is hard to believe that you did not notice that, and so you leave the reader to wonder what you're playing at. Your claims to critics on this page being irrelevant and your suggestion that we look solely to journals is nothing more than the fallacious argument from authority. It is also expected from a person in your position, that is, an undergrad in a philo department. Now, all of your red herrings aside, there are 'scholars' who disagree with Plantinga; since you're spending so much time in journals, and hold them up as founts of knowledge, won't you cite a few articles in the spirit of the love of wisdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)
This has nothing to do with me being an undergraduate, or with the argument from authority. I am not arguing for the truth of anything because a credible person says so, although really that would be justifiable in most cases. It's perfectly legitimate if I say that the earth is billions of years old, even though I am merely going with scientific consensus on the issue. I am just trusting a reliable source with credentials, that is, the scientific community. So here I am saying that, trasparently, Plantinga's argument is respected and taken seriously - that means noticed and discussed in peer-reviewed scholarship. That is more or less a matter of definition for the terms respected and taken seriously. I can't think of a better usage, certianly not the elevated thoughts of you or me. Also, of course there are numerous scholars who disagree with Plantinga; philosophy and science are not supposed to be dogmatic in that respect. That's how progress works. And I'm not holding up journals as "founts of knowledge," I'm just taking seriously the benefits of peer-reviewed scholarship. What is peer-reviewed scholarship? A collection of rigorous work done by highly and verifiably educated people in a field, subject to mutual criticism and development by like persons. As I said, I can't think of a better way than those credentials for defining what is serious, respected, and so on. On the other hand, statements like "I'm inclined to agree," "I find them risible," etc. are autobiographical comments and therefore uninteresting. By the way, the proper stereotype for undergraduates is not reference to philosophy and science journals. Faculty would love that. The stereotype for undergraduate is, oddly, what you are doing, which is making outlandish claims which ignore the work in the field, just going by what so far appear to be your whims and feelings. Dextris Dei 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I fully support your goal of having all relevant views represented, including some criticism in this article.
Oh, it might be helpful if you created an account so we could address you by name. 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the argument

The concensus here seems to be that some criticism should mentioned. I think that's right, as it is a controversial topic. I have put in a brief mention at the end. Expand if you like... Poujeaux 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following: Fitelson and Sober state that his 'arguments contain serious errors' [[1]]. The actual quotation is "we will try to show that both arguments contain serious errors." Don't put words in people's mouths, please. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The part in quotes are their words, and if they tried to show it, then they certainly believe it. If anything, the text doesn't put enough words in their mouths; it certainly doesn't overstate their claim. -- 68.6.55.65 14:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote up a little summary of their conclusions. I actually was going through the paper and writing a summary of the arguments, but it got too long. Here is what I came up with:
They show that if traditional theism and 1990s naturalistic evolutionary theory are the only choices available, then Plantinga's claim that the probability that traditional theism is true has a 'comparable' probability as naturalistic evolutionary theory being true is impossible under the axioms of Bayesian logic (section 1.5)[2]. There is another way to interpret Plantinga's argument. In order for Plantinga's argument to avoid self-contradiction, prior to the argument the probability of traditional theism must be very high for the subject (around 95%) and the probability of naturalistic evolutionary theory must be very low (around 5%). So on this intrepretation, Fitelson and Sober continue, the argument is "entirely deprived of all probative force."
That only goes about halfway through the paper. Maybe I'll come back and finish it sometime. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable sentence.

I restored this:

Thus, asserting that naturalistic evolution is true is also asserting that one has a low probability of being right in any of his assertions.

I believe this is an accurate summary of Plantinga's argument. Am I mistaken? Al 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence is fine, although a bit awkward. The propositions themselves are not the same, but it's true the argument is that the latter follows from the former. That's just a slightly careless formulation, since as I said the assertions themselves are not said to be identical, but are said to follow. Since, however, people read and understand the English language, it should be fine, and probably gets the point accross well since it is terse. Dextris Dei 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy first, beauty second. If you have some specific improvement, please suggest it. Al 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD about Plantinga's argument

An article about the Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. But it is currently nominated for deletion. If one can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased wording?

Perhaps this sentence should be reworded:

He has argued that anyone who holds to the truth of both naturalism and evolution is irrational in doing so, an argument that finds much support within the intelligent design movement.

Referring to naturalism and evolution as "the truth" in reference to Platinga seems out of place, from what I can gather. Ejectgoose 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You'd probably make less of a fool of yourself if you tried to understand Plantinga's argument before commented on it.

[edit] A personal detail or two?

I've found it practically impossible to find out if Plantinga is human -- ie, if he's married, has children or single or what. I couldn't find a single source that would tell me, so I eventually gave up.

Some time after I did this, I bumped into the fact that he has a wife and a daughter. He mentioned his wife in one of his talks on www.veritas.org/media's programmes, and his daughter is mentioned here: http://www.truthbook.com/news/labels/Alvin%20Plantinga.html|this. Does anyone know -- and have a good source for -- anything else about his personal life? I think they may be worth at least a mention. Hairouna 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to verify any of this information, but I do have a few more facts that could be added under personal details. His daughter is a professor at Louisville Seminary (PCUSA) and has written a book or two on Jonathan Edwards. I believe she goes by the name Amy Plantinga-Pauw. His father, Cornelius Plantinga Sr., had some connection to Calvin college, but I'm not sure what. His brother, Cornelius Plantinga Jr., is the current president of Calvin Seminary and has written several books on theology (he also has a page on Wikipedia which could be linked to). I'm only throwing that out there in case anyone is interested in verifying/citing it. Stewart 8:51, 19 October 2007(UTC)