Dennett Science And Religion Analysis

In the book Science and Religion, two philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett, share their opposing viewpoints on whether they believe the two are compatible. Plantinga is a Christian and he believes that the two are in fact, compatible. His arguments are based on rationality from a theistic view and how it is not present in a naturalist view. He says, (page 9)
"As I argue in Warranted Christian Belief, if theistic belief is true, then very likely it has both rationality and warrant in the basic way, that is, not on the basic of propositional evidence. If theistic belief is true, then very likely there is a cognitive structure something like John Calvin’s sensus divinitatis, an original source of warranted theistic belief. In this …show more content…
Mainly just because I can't wrap my mind around what Dennett is trying to get across to readers, but also because his arguments were a lot stronger than Dennett's. How can someone honestly believe Superman even compares to God? The way kids are raised nowadays is completely different than how a traditional family raised their children. For example, I grew up going to church on Sundays and learning about God. This makes it extremely hard for me to take in any opinions stating that God doesn't, could not, or might not exist. I just simply was not raised to believe it. Other kids grow up in families that aren't as focused on religion so their own opinions stray away from a God. In this case, I can see why some people might believe what Dennett is saying in the book. Plantinga says that science and religion are compatible, but he switches the argument to focusing more on Evolution vs. Religion. Christianity says that God made man, but evolution says everything happens by random chance. Out of all of Plantinga's theories I like the one that says the evolutionary process is wasteful, God would not permit this sort of process. People don’t believe in God based on an argument. The belief is simply that, something one just knows to be true, like that the world didn't just pop into existence five seconds ago. Therefore, there is no conflict between the two. On the contrary, there does seem to be a conflict between a particular religion, naturalism and science (evolution). Naturalism is the belief that there isn't any such person as God. One cannot believe there isn't a God, and also believe in evolution. The whole argument confuses me because I do not understand how he compares the two using probability equations. I do not believe that science has anything to do with religion when it comes to much. How can religion actually help you form a hypothesis? It can't. How can religion