I agree that Plantinga’s critique is an insurmountable problem for the naturalist. However, it isn’t the direction I will be taking. It already concedes too much by granting, implicitly, that rationality exists in a naturalistic worldview. Not only is there no guarantee of rationality, but the very concept is incoherent.

Naturalism fails at every level; I have just chosen a different level than Plantinga by focusing on whether the concept of truth, rather than the possibility of it, is congruent with the naturalistic worldview. My critique will probably be similar to the comments I made regarding value in the original discussion. Ask a naturalist to define value, and you will basically get a definition along the lines of “something beneficial”. Which is of course begging the question, regardless of how they then define what is “beneficial”; because beneficial implies value. If you didn’t already know what value was, the definition would be meaningless.

Blue Devil Knight—

Why do you think my view is insane regarding who benefits in a discussion? Consider the context of my comment. I am not referring to one-on-one conversations in real life, but to argumentation online. From experience, the two parties actually engaged are entrenched in their positions; it is those in the “audience” (a term which is not time- or location-limited online) who are undecided and trying to weigh each position who learn and gain the most. Why would I continue a conversation indefinitely with a single person who will not—but for the grace of God—change his mind, when I can conduct that same discussion in a public and structured manner, and thus reach potentially anyone online who is already being drawn by grace to ask the sorts of questions which I will seek to answer?

Regards,
Bnonn

This is insane.

A man may run from the tiger because he has an irrational fear of the color orange or an irrational fear of fur in general. The man survives but not according to truth or reason.

Of course the atheists must agree. The vast majority of humankind have believed in a god or gods – that there was something “out there” that man was accountable to. Now this “irrational belief” (irrational according to atheists) must have conferred some advantage to our species.

So this deep and wide spread belief conferred advantage and was irrational. If this is true, then most of our beliefs and conclusions must be brought into question. Truth and reason are simply not necessary to the evolutionary process or to gain advantage.

Let me say, at least in person JC is polite and respectful and makes some good points, however I can’t see him winning. No offense JC.