The Argument from Reason Against Naturalism | w/Dr. Victor Reppert - PPP ep. 97

Подписаться 14 тыс.

Просмотров 1,6 тыс.

50% 1

In this episode of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined by Dr. Victor Reppert to discuss his work on the Argument from Reason against naturalism. Roughly, in order to rationally affirm naturalism, we need to have the ability to form beliefs for good reasons, which requires logic inference. But if naturalism is true, then we form beliefs due to the laws of physics rather than the laws of logical inference. So if naturalism is true, you can't believe naturalism is true. So, don't believe naturalism is true.
Grab Dr. Reppert's book, C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea, here: amzn.to/3vFrj5N
If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $1, $3, or $5 a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here:
Patreon: / parkers_pensees
If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal:
paypal.me/ParkersPensees?loca...
Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: teespring.com/stores/parkers-...
Check out my blog posts: parkersettecase.com/
Check out my Parker's Pensées RU-vid Channel:
/ parker's pensées
Check out my other RU-vid channel on my frogs and turtles: / parkersettecase
Check me out on Twitter: / trendsettercase
Instagram: / parkers_pensees

Опубликовано:

2 май 2021

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 17

Год назад

Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees

@20july1944 3 года назад

Dr. Reppert is much easier to understand than the recent guest. This is not to critique the former's content, but he was hard for me to absorb as he spoke.

@kumarb1581 3 года назад

For me the argument from reason, the argument from necessary being, and the teleological argument are the most interesting. Please interview Joshua Rasmussen regarding necessary being.

3 года назад

He's coming on next month to talk about truth. Hopefully he likes me and we can set up more conversations!

@AlexADalton 3 года назад

This is an amazing channel. Loving the content so far. Keep it up man...

@mightywarrior9812 2 месяца назад

Another person you should read on this argument is Jim Slagle. He's written 2 books on this topic. The first one is "The Epistemological Skyhook: Determinism, Naturalism, and Self-Defeat". This one is essentially a detailed history of the argument (probably the first of it's kind). Most of the book covers the past 250 year history of this argument (with different versions of it). Slagle's second book "The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism: Context, Exposition and Repercussions". This one is a detailed defense of Plantinga's EAAN. I found the first one was easier to read, while the second one was really technical.

2 месяца назад

Slagle was one of my first podcast guests to talk about the skyhook and he cam back on to talk about his EAAN book. Great episodes. Jim's a friend

@vexifiz6792 7 месяцев назад

Very interesting, I love the argument from reason

7 месяцев назад

Me too! Definitely a favorite

@danglingondivineladders3994 3 года назад

this is a good argument. It would work well with TAG imo.

@JohnSmith-bq6nf 2 года назад

Tag has issues like if god changes his mind can logic change too? Or you can apply the euthyro dilemma

@JohnSmith-bq6nf 2 года назад

I always liked this argument

@bennyredpilled5455 2 года назад

I am reading Reppert's book right now. I find Anscombe's objections(at least those mentioned in the book) pathetically weak. The whole "Lewis was defeated"-thingy is nothing but the fairytale. I have only read the description of Johnson's rebuttal so far, which claims: (2) Physical processes can reliably produce true beliefs. And (3) reasoning isn't necessarily mental. And water is not necessarily H20...

@vexifiz6792 7 месяцев назад

Lewis himself worked around her objections in his later version of miracles quite well I think - it’s funny how people think it completely “destroyed” him

@introvertedchristian5219 3 года назад

Another great interview! One reservation I have about Lewis' argument is that it assumes any rational believe we have must be the consequent of some ground. But if you take that to its logical conclusion, it leads to an infinite regress. For anything you believe, there must be some ground upon which you believe it, and a ground for that ground, ad infinitum. The only way to halt the infinite regress, it seems to me, is to adopt some kind of foundationalism. But if you adopt foundationalism, then you have to concede that there are some beliefs that are NOT the result of rational inference. They're just kind of built in. Our brains are hardwired to have them. That means they are caused. But if Lewis' argument is sound, then these foundational items of knowledge are not rational. And if they are not rational, then any beliefs we derive from them can't be rational either. It seems to me that Plantinga's argument perfectly compliments Lewis' argument by dealing with this issue. If some of our beliefs are the result of causes (since they are hardwired) rather than reasons (since they are not the consequents of grounds), then the question arises whether the mechanism by which these beliefs are produced is a reliable belief-producing mechanism. And that's the issue Plantinga's argument addresses. I made a video about that.

@victorreppert453 3 года назад

Actually, the argument does not assume that all rational beliefs are consequents of a ground, in other words, have propositional bases. This would, of course, launch an infinite regress. Lewis says that all knowledge, except for our sensations, is inferred from those sensations, but he doesn't even need that. All he needs is that some beliefs, such as scientific beliefs, or the arguments for naturalism, require ground and consequent inference in order to be known. Dawkins says that what distinguishes the scientific perspective from other perspectives is that people who look at things scientifically believe what they believe based on evidence. But if Lewis is right, then if naturalism is true, no one ever believes anything based on evidence. Naturalism becomes self-refuting once, as is inevitable, they claim their position is supported by the evidence.

@maytedelafuentecoronado7225 2 года назад

Hey there! Thinking about the computer objection, if naturalism is true and we can't trust our cognitive faculties, wouldn't it even affect how we design computers? How to know if the designer oriented them towards the truth, if the designer himself is not oriented to the truth? This reminds me of something that Jesus said in Matthew 15:14: "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." If the blind watchmaker has formed our minds, there is no reason to trust them, not even when we use them to design computers.