Stumble it!Plantinga and the Xtians
posted in Philosophy by themaiden |I would like to suggest that all physicists, chemists, astronomers, cosmologists, and other scientists commit themselves to some dogma within their science and henceforth apologize for it without reservation. I suggest they assume an answer. I’d like to suggest that scientists adopt the final answer and commit themselves to its defense. I suggest that the scientific community guide itself not by evidence or by argument but by adherence to a defined goal. I’d like to suggest, in fact, that everyone just start with assumptions that, surprise, lead to the ends desired, then defend said position by claiming that “we are justified in believing because, well, people believe it”, support the statement with some circular nonsense about Something being rationally believable because that Something inplanted belief in It in our heads, and maybe quote someone long dead as proof. I think things would work out quite well if we all behaved as just outlined. I’m sure you all agree.
Let me recap.
“I suggest they assume an answer.”
… the modern Christian philosopher has a perfect right, as a philosopher, to start from his belief in God. He has a right to assume it, take it for granted…
“… and commit themselves to its defense.”
Christian courage, or boldness, or strength, or perhaps Christian self-confidence. We Christian philosophers must display more faith, more trust in the Lord; we must put on the whole armor of God.
“Put on the whole armor of God” is code for “believe stubbornly no matter what”.
“I suggest that the scientific community guide itself not by evidence or by argument but by adherence to a defined goal.”
“Your criterion is mistaken: for such statements as ‘God loves us’ and ‘God created the heavens and the earth’ are clearly meaningful; so if they aren’t verifiable in your sense, then it is false that all and only statements verifiable in that sense are meaningful.” What was needed here was less accommodation to current fashion and more Christian self-confidence: Christian theism is true; if Christian theism is true, then the verifiability criterion is false; so the verifiability criterion is false.
“I’d like to suggest, in fact, that everyone just start with assumptions that, surprise, lead to the ends desired…”
But he will think, or be inclined to think, or half inclined to think that as a philosopher he has no right to this position unless he is able to show that it follows from, or is probable, or justified with respect to premises accepted by all parties to the discussion-theist, agnostic and atheist alike. Furthermore, he will be half inclined to think he has no right, as a philosopher, to positions that presuppose the existence of God, if he can’t show that belief to be justified in this way. What I want to urge is that the Christian philosophical community ought not think of itself as engaged in this common effort to determine the probability or philosophical plausibility of belief in God. The Christian philosopher quite properly starts from the existence of God, and presupposes it in philosophical work, whether or not he can show it to be probable or plausible with respect to premises accepted by all philosophers, or most philosophers at the great contemporary centers of philosophy.
“… then defend said position by claiming that “we are justified in believing because, well, people believe it”, support the statement with some circular nonsense about Something being rationally believable because that Something inplanted belief in It in our heads, and maybe quote someone long dead as proof.”
God, said Calvin, has implanted in humankind a tendency or nisus or disposition to believe in him:
“There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity.” This we take to beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty . . . Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.[2]
Plantinga is a poison. He is subtle. He is eloquent. He has one hell of a silver tongue, but he is poison. Toxic. It seems his whole project is to undermine rationality itself to make room for God. Frankly, if God can’t stand according to the ordinary rules of ‘reasonable’, then God can just get left in the cold. He doesn’t get special treatment.
Really, would anyone seriously make these kinds of claims about anything but God? I don’t think so. What if your doctor got it into his head that he could just assume some treatment to be effective and not worry about demonstrating it to his peers and not even worry about making an argument at all… ’cause the fact is just assumed? What if the scientists made some assumption… like, say, that God doesn’t exist and that that is that and too bad for the religious? I suspect that Plantinga would complain.
Popularity: 2%
