SisyphusRedeemed
Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame) delivers a paper at the 2009 Central Division of the American Philosophical Association in Chicago, entitled “Religion and Science: Where the Real Conflict Lies.” Daniel Dennett (Tufts) comments.
No, this is not my recording, but yes, I was at this talk (I actually ask the very first question in the Q&A (I didn’t express myself well, but Plantinga seemed to get the jist). I tried to record it, but my camera wasn’t working. So I found this recording online, and thought the YouTube community might enjoy.
Source
It would seem that Plantinga failed to understand that ANY unsubstantiated claim X is just as unacceptable as ANY unsubstantiated claim Y and in the vacuum of substantiation for either leaves both equally worthless as a basis for further development of any sort.
Naturalism (there is only nature and nothing else) is ultimate all that can be claimed IF it is the case that we cannot know of anything else; we have no rational choice other than to accept naturalism as the limits of what we can know, since, any other claim is unsustainable due to intrinsic limitations of our circumstances of being (allowing for the assuming of possibilities outside what we actually know).
The Matrix movie would seem to be the perfect depiction of this problem. If one is IN the matrix, the idea of their being an OUTSIDE of the matrix cannot be substantiated within the Matrix, which would be the same case if we were in fact a simulation comparable to that of holodeck characters in the Star Trek series.
So Plantinga is a bit of a Behe fan (although apparently not as much as he was).
So does he really not do any research, OR does he not see the inherent and overt dishonesty and complete bias of Behe and the Discovery Institute, OR does he see it and discount it as unimportant?
Yet again religion and the faith based mindset shows the corrosive effects it invariably creates.