Talk:Alvin Plantinga

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)

"Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober[65][citation needed], it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel,[66] William Lane Craig,[67] and others." - Should this sentence say anything byond "This argument is controversial amongs philosophers"? That the opponents are decribed as "some philosophers" could mean, that there aren't many, eighter because most philosophers don't deal with it or because most agree. --89.26.98.56 (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Nagel and William Lane Craig are anti-evolutionists, and Elliott Sober is on the side of science. It is pretty clear where the line is between those who agree with Plantinga's "reasoning" and those who do not: it is between anti-science religion on one hand and science on the other. "Some" is indeed a no-go. See WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Plantinga's arguments against evolution are schoolboy howlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:447F:F0EC:4090:D508 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocates

Plantinga has been tagged as an Intelligent design advocate. I know he is a member of ISCID and I think he's a critical stance towards methodological naturalism. I this enough to be an advocate of intelligent design? What is the definition of this term? I wonder because I have never seen him deny himself theistic evolution or embrace creationism (the idea that god created through several acts of special creation life on earth). When I think of an advocate of ID I have rather people like Behe in mind who deny explicitly evolution (the central claim of ID). I'd like to hear other opinions on this, additional sources are of course welcome.--Student of philosophy (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick points. Firstly, ISCID is viewed as an ID organisation, so this may be the rationale for tagging Plantinga as the same. Secondly, as far as I'm aware, Behe doesn't deny evolution per se, rather he claims that there are some biological structures that cannot have arisen through normal evolutionary processes. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think advocate is slightly too strong. It is safe to say that he shares some of their underlying principles; in particular, he supports their fight against naturalism. He is explicitly referred to as an advocate here, but I wouldn't consider that a reliable source. His detailed positions are in that fabulous book, but the entire debate is available here. I believe McMullin quite nicely spells out the differences and similarity between Plantinga and ID advocates. As a footnotes, he writes:

The most obvious difference scarcely needs be stated. Plantinga is one of the most highly respected philosophers in the U.S., justly renowned for the quality of his scholarship and the care and rigor of his arguments. I bracket him here with the creation-science group, incongruous as such an association may seem, only because of the broad similarity of their theses in regard to special creation. I very much fear that this similarity may be sufficient to encourage creation-scientists to co-opt his essay to their own purposes.

Emphasis was added to highlight the fear that people may be trying to add that category this article in order to lend some credibility to the ID movement; if that is at all possible ... Vesal (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He is listed by The Creationists (Expanded Edition, p397) as having "lent moral support to the design camp", and by Creationism's Trojan Horse as being a "long time Wedge all[y]" (p213) and one of the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' that defended Johnson's Darwin on Trial (p18) (the book that sparked off the intelligent design movement). He also provided a dustcover blurb endorsing it.[1] All that, combined with ISCID membership & participation in numerous ID conferences, would appear to be sufficient to call him an ID advocate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is quite solid. Maybe the section should be moved to his views? Additional detail about what he supports and what he disagrees with would be useful. I'll see if I can find the time to add it myself. Vesal (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that most prominent ID advocates are not Young Earth creationist Creation science supporters, so the McMullin-sourced material doesn't in fact differentiate him from other IDers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I actually saw that problem when writing it. I will remove it for now, perhaps better sources exist, or someone else can work with it. I'll dump it here: Plantinga shares with creation science advocates the view that the best explanation of biological diversity is an interruption in natural processes, a moment when God made the universe behave differently from its normal course. He also relies on critiques of current evolutionary theory to advance his alternative views. However, Plantinga rejects Young Earth creationism and limits divine interference to only guiding evolution, primarily of human beings. Most importantly, he does not attempt to package his views as a scientific theory, nor does he attempt to hide the Christian underpinnings of his position [2] Maybe just cutting out the part about YEC would make it valid? But ideally this should be done more carefully than I can commit the time to do. Sorry, Vesal (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sceptical about this whole section. I don't think Plantinga supports ID and this smacks of "guilt by association". At the very least it should be renamed "Stance in respect of ID". NBeale (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, 'guilt by participation' would be more accurate. We have reliable sources both identifying Plantinga supporter, and documenting his activities in support of ID. Do you have any sources substantiating your 'skepticism'? I have changed the title back, per WP:SPADE (and WP:DUCK would also appear to apply). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All we have is an opponent of ID claiming he is a supporter, and the fact that he engages with the people involved. NBeale (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No NBeale, "all we have" is somebody accepted by a Federal court as an expert on the history of the ID movement, the most prominent historian of creationism, defense and endorsement of an ID-polemic book, membership of a pro-ID organisation, and participation in ID-conferences. To your claim of mere 'engagement', I say utter and unmitigated BULLSHIT! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

None of this says that he supports or endorses ID. He thinks that some of the arguments used are poor. Also you should try WP:CIVIL. NBeale (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably more accurate to say that he has supported the ID movement, and from what I recall seeing lately he continues to do that. Calling that "stance re" is weaselly and absurd, sounding like a dog cocking its leg in the air. Of course, there's nothing to prevent you from adding a properly sourced summary of his published thoughts that some of the arguments used are poor, but he shares their basic argument that empirical evidence for evolution is to be dismissed as materialist. Also you should try to remember that WP:CIVIL is not a weapon to use against other contributors. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your argument has not the slightest smidgeon of merit. We have Plantinga's own words on the dustcover of DoT endorsing it, and through it the intelligent design movement that this book launched, and we have two WP:RS (Numbers and Forrest & Gross) for his support of it. Further, you have offered no evidence whatsoever differentiating Plantinga from ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A8AF:DF88:4C28:2656 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

ROFL! "2:51 pm - Plantinga mentions Michael Behe, calls the argument serious. Dennett appears stunned, understandably. It's not clear whether Plantinga intended to be provocative by speaking up for this 'much maligned' intelligent design theorist. Plantinga says the ID argument is compelling but inconclusive as the complexity of the cell is more probable on theism than naturalism (but it isn't clear how much more)." Andrew Moon (February 23, 2009). "An Opinionated Play-by-Play of the Plantinga-Dennett Exchange - The Prosblogion". . dave souza, talk 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Theologian categorization

Are you saying philosophy of religion is the same thing as theology? Category:Philosophers of religion is its own cat. If you have sources saying he's a theologian, please add it to the article. Categorization should be verifiable based on the article text. --JFHutson (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

His ontological argument for the existence of God constitutes what is called "natural theology" 191.254.134.147 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Air Conditioning Incident

Why is the section about Platinga being on local television a noteworthy event for this page? The fact that someone appeared on a local television show about a mundane news story doesnt seem like it warrants inclusion on an encyclopedia article.

This section was originally made by an IP editor, I removed it and explained why, and another IP editor reverted it without explanation. Im reverting back to the original removal and if anyone would like to say anything in defense of that section they can talk about it here. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Photo is uncharacteristically cool

Plantinga never looks as cool as in that photo in other situations. The article photo should be one in which he does not look that cool, in order to be more realistic. 191.254.134.147 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)