By popular demand, the Doubtcasters present their critique of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). This celebrated argument attempts to demonstrate that natural selection, if unguided by god, could not produce beings with reliable cognitive faculties capable of discerning the truth. But is EAAN all its cracked up to be? Also on this episode: The Doubtcasters consider William Lane Craig's rebuttal to Euthyphro's Dilemma, answer listener e-mails, and discuss Bill Maher's new movie Religulous.To download this or any previous Reasonable Doubts episodes click here.
1 comment:
As I remarked somewhere, I think in an email to you, the most succinct refutation of Plantinga's argument I know is that critters whose perceptual/cognitive apparatus tends to give them unreliable representations of (relevant aspects of) their reality tend to end up as lunch for critters whose apparatus gives them more veridical representations of reality. "Paul" may do fine with tigers, but over the long haul across situations, an unreliable cognitive apparatus is evolutionarily lethal.
Post a Comment
If you have an objection of a religious nature please feel free to share it, but we request that you also read our "welcome message to believers". For all posts, keep it reasonably clean and fair-minded. We ask permission before reading any comments on the podcast and we never give out names (unless specifically told by the author to do so) Anonymously posted questions/comments might be read on air, at our discretion.