Naturalism ‘ad absurdum’

Alvin Plantinga responding to Richard Dawkin’s book, The God Delusion:

…“The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins’ naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.

“The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn’t give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a “delusion.”

The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.”

You can read the entire article here.

Here are excellent papers by professor Alvin Plantinga and one titled “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.”

 

Added 02/24/11:

In terms of probability: P(R/N&E)

R= a claim of reliability based on human cognitive faculties
N=metaphysical naturalism
E=evolution developed cognition (blind watchmaker stuff)

P of R<1/2 = a self-defeater for R if we accept N & E