Talk:Evolutionary argument against naturalism

The Argument from Reason

This argument against naturalism (that natural evolution is extremely unlikely to result in rational minds) is really just a variant on The Argument from Reason for the existence of God (that natural physics is extremely unlikely to result in rational minds). Both arguments originate with C.S. Lewis. This article deserves some commentary to that effect and an actual link to our wiki article on the latter subject. --173.76.67.53 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source for this claim? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Adaptive and Maladaptive Belief

What are "Adaptive belief" and "Maladaptive belief"?--144.122.56.98 (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Beliefs that are good for your person/bad for your person. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Asserting or claiming

"Asserting" in the introoduction is fine. It's the same as "claiming" really. The main issue is that the article does not, as it did before, claim that this argument really does demonstrate a problem, violating WP:NPOV.

After all, the argument just says "humans are fallible, so they could be wrong when they accept evolution". And it unnecessarily adds reasons for the already well-known fact that humans are fallible.

Of course the template "humans are fallible, so they could be wrong when they accept xxx" can be universally applied, so the argument is silly to the extreme and should be called "Evolutionary argument against everything anyone accepts as true". "Asserting" indeed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that the argument is nonsensical but that the article lacks the necessary criticism, so I agree that there appears to be a POV issue. —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Evolutionary argument against naturalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505103043/http://hisdefense.org/OnlineLectures/tabid/136/Default.aspx to http://www.hisdefense.org/OnlineLectures/tabid/136/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726151321/http://www.hisdefense.org/audio/Plantinga%20-%20Evolutionary%20Arguments%20against%20Naturalism.rm to http://www.hisdefense.org/audio/Plantinga%20-%20Evolutionary%20Arguments%20against%20Naturalism.rm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421074312/http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html to http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Responses section needs serious editing

Rather than writing about the responses to this argument as if they are counter-arguments, the section on Responses is essentially a rant written against the topic of the article. The responses are characterized as inerrant fact that has set straight the record pertaining a religious fanatic. I haven't read these sources myself, but the Responses section seems to have more straw men in it than a cornfield. If those are lifted from the sources, the section should be rewritten to be discussing sources instead of summarizing them as fact. If those aren't lifted from the sources, then they're original content and should be edited out. Either way, there is little more than a mess of missing commas and run-on sentences in that Responses section that imparts no knowledge other than that the writer of that section has a chip on her or his shoulder. Trogyssy (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I gather that consensus about the argument is that it is profoundly stupid. That humans are fallible is an obvious fact and does not need to be derived from naturalism. When you remove that part, the argument burns down to the trivial "everything we know may be wrong", and its connection to naturalism is just a sleight of mind. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

On the inclusion of the criticisms of Daniel Dennet.

Daniel Dennet too has criticised Plantinga's argument. Include his criticism of Plantinga as well. The audio of the debate between Plantinga and Dennet on the compatibility of science and religion contains dennet's criticism of plantinga. Anas Azeem 2005 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)