Friday, April 10, 2020

Plantinga on the God Delusion

Here. 

45 comments:

Starhopper said...

Fuuny thing, Richard Dawkins seems far more pleasant, reasonable, and accommodating in person than he does in his writings. Witness this 2012 debate between him and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. (Relevant section begins at 14:45.) More conversations between believers and atheists ought to be like this!

One Brow said...

I wonder if Plantinga intended to set up a test of whether humans were specially created in this essay, or realized the degree to which the test would come back the opposite of what he wanted.

From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.

All we have to do to test human origin is to evaluate whether humans are good at forming correct beliefs, or prone to making serious errors when making beliefs? The interesting thing is that if we can't even make a good test for this ability, it only confirms that we are not able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge, i.e., an ability to maker a test you can confirm a passing result for fails the test.

As for whether humans are good at forming correct beliefs, I think there is plenty of evidence they are not.

Starhopper said...

A Blessed Easter to all of you!

Хрїсто́съ воскре́се!

bmiller said...

He is risen!

Eric Vestrup said...

Isn't Dawkins self-clowning when he talks about the complexity of God? I am admittedly only wading in a kiddie pool when it comes to my studies of Thomism, but as I understand the classical arguments, the God at the conclusion of those classical arguments is not complex, but is a metaphysical simplicity. When I look at my own Lutheran Confessions, in the very first sentence they confess that God is "without parts". And a modern treatment by Edward Feser (his five proofs book, from which I've profited greatly), he argues to a being that is non-composite. While it is very difficult for me to visualize how God can have His essence identical to His existence, which is identical to His omnipotence, His omniscience, etc, I don't think it is internally inconsistent. (As a mathematician who in a previous life dealt with all sorts of weird sets and nonconstructive entities that couldn't be visualized even if we had infinitely many steps to construct something, these things about God don't psychologically get my dander up.)

The point is this: if Dawkins and other militant atheist types want to consider Dawkins' complexity argument against God as decisive or fatal, it looks to me as if they're not only not right, they are not even addressing the classical arguments and the conclusions they reach.

I would think that atheists of even moderate learning would be deeply embarrassed at Dawkins and his ilk, much as I'm embarrassed by really really bad "fundagelical" stuff out there like mega-church fog machines and laser shows.

Happy Easter to Victor and all from a long time lurker.

One Brow said...

I am admittedly only wading in a kiddie pool when it comes to my studies of Thomism, but as I understand the classical arguments, the God at the conclusion of those classical arguments is not complex, but is a metaphysical simplicity.

Quite possibly Dawkins would be quite content with those who acknowledge complex systems can arise from simple origins. I believe he is arguing against those who claim complex systems require complex origins.

bmiller said...

Eric,

The point is this: if Dawkins and other militant atheist types want to consider Dawkins' complexity argument against God as decisive or fatal, it looks to me as if they're not only not right, they are not even addressing the classical arguments and the conclusions they reach.

Good point. One would think that if one were to go to the trouble of making such a big production out of attacking an aspect of theism, then one would go to the trouble of finding out exactly what was taught about that aspect from the major adherents of the world. It is rather sad though, that people are so ignorant of historical Christianity that anyone thinks his premise has any validity.

I remember reading Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" when I was much younger and not as well read in order to fairly challenge my beliefs. I was expecting deep challenges since Russell was a world renowned philosopher and I was relatively ignorant. When I found out he thought the killer argument was "then who made God?" I was flabbergasted. That's it? My religious education consisted only of Saturday mornings in Catechism classes and even I could tell that was a laughable argument for a world renowned philosopher to actually make. Anglicanism must have made a mess of teaching theology and promoted bad thinking to allow Russell and Dawkins to think they were making good arguments against theism.

bmiller said...

Starhopper,

He is risen indeed!

Eric Vestrup said...

bmiller:

Decades ago I read the famous Russell essay in my 20s as a recent convert. I too came away not really impressed at the depth of thinking, despite knowing of Russell's brilliance in analytic philosophy. It was an early lesson (one of many) that mere intellectual pedigree in one field does not automatically confer weight to one's arguments in another field. My mid-20-something self couldn't articulate well why Russell's arguments were weak, but my objections to his objections have stayed the same, but now I can articulate them well.

Obviously I don't think atheism is true, and I consider its difficulties far more burdensome than those of classical Christianity. But I'm sympathetic to good-faith atheists having been (I think) one of them during my college years, although maybe I was somewhat on the obnoxious side at times. I think I see things from their points of view, and I think I know why they don't find Christianity compelling or even 51% likely to be true. I was all over the map my first quarter century before converging and stabilizing on boring old whitebread vanilla Christianity, and I have some life experience in various different competing worldviews. Like atheists, I roll my eyes at some of the wackier expressions of Christianity, and I think reading them or interacting them has been profitable for me. I think they're wrong, they think I'm wrong, and I or we can both live with that.

Where my sympathy for atheists or deconverts ends is when a certain personality type of atheist couches their argumentation in dismissive sneers (or makes the sneer the argument itself), in a fashionable pose, or with this attitude that suggests that they think their criticism is new and devastating and will catch us unawares. This idea that we're a bunch of benighted gullible rubes who have never actually wrestled with the implications of our worldview or seen the difficulties within. And then some of them write books lecturing and hectoring people like me on just how silly we are. Throw in the smugness of your typical deconversion story (all of which seem to follow the same template) and you have a pet peeve of mine. There is a sort of social bullying as well in that there is the implication "all the really smart believe believe my secular humanism" or that the beautiful crowd thinks we're not cool. Or you have people working out their life crises and psychological baggage by not privately asking the tough questions (which is totally fine and honorable) but by publicly attacking Christianity, scoffing at believers, etc, which also tests my limited reserve of charity.

Again, those who simply think I'm wrong can be 100% honorable and honest. It's more the personality type that irritates me. I'm aware that perhaps the atheist version of me might state the above paragraph regarding the more obnoxious Christian types too.

Sorry for the semi-sermonic length, happy Easter. The lockdown is getting me a bit antsy!

bmiller said...

Eric,

Happy Easter to you too.

I completely get where you're coming from. It's one thing to have your own beliefs and have a discussion with others to find out what they believe. You can put some difficult questions to others and have them ask difficult questions of you without getting snotty about it.

I too have a difficult time with snots. But God loves them too.

I'm actually enjoying the lockdown. I don't have the hour commute to an from work now that I have to work from home and I see more of my family. Hmmm....I just assumed they enjoy having me home, but I never really asked them ;-)

Eric Vestrup said...

bmiller:

What you say about "snots" is true. (I may well have been one at one point in the 80s, though I hope that I'm being too hard on myself in saying that.)

I've worked at home the last five years, and I think my work at home is at least as good and efficacious as what I did in an office. I'm a mathematical statistician and statistical programmer, which means I can basically work from anywhere with an internet connection. It is a most excellent existence. It gets too quiet at times, even when connected via intercom to one's colleagues, but modern technology like skype makes things bearable. But overall, the quality of life is really excellent. Sole proprietor 1099ing rocks and there are some very good tax benefits.

bmiller said...

Eric,

You're living the dream. 1099ing does rock. I was doing that briefly.

Starhopper said...

I am out of the hospital (but not out of the woods)!

Had some time to think during this enforced inactivity, and distilled my thoughts into the latest posting to my own blog.

One Brow said...

Starhopper, welcome back.

bmiller said...

Good to have you back and (relatively) healthy Starhopper.

StardustyPsyche said...

Eric Vestrup said..
"While it is very difficult for me to visualize how God can have His essence identical to His existence, which is identical to His omnipotence, His omniscience, etc"
Right, if G=x, G=s, G=m, and G=n then
x=s=m=n
Thus
essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other, which is incoherent.

Thomism is just a collection of incoherent terms manufactured by putting disjoint words together into nonsensical terms and then declaring eureka.

Aquinas starts out very reasonably, with what is manifest and evident to our senses, and he correctly notes that some things move. After that he quickly descends into incoherent gibberish.

bmiller said...

Everything sounds like gibberish to people who are either unable or unwilling to do a minimal amount of study.

The terms related to God's attributes are not considered univocal to what would be considered human attributes but are instead analogous.

It's so boring to see people claim things they don't understand are incoherent while showing zero effort to show they even tried to understand the claims.

bmiller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bmiller said...

This article is actually much better related to the context

StardustyPsyche said...

An analogical argument is not an argument at all, it is gibberish.

Yes, I speak univocally. Words have meanings. When I speak I use words according to their meanings. If my meaning for a term is not clear then I define that term so that others can speak univocally employing that term the same way I employ that term.

Speaking analogically is just a way of rattling off nonsensical gibberish as though it sort of kind of makes sense in some fuzzy cloudy undefined way.

It is so boring when people claim I have not studied a subject I am highly familiar with.

bmiller said...

Like I said people who either are too lazy to study or cannot understand what is being said make very boring statements after the novelty of the non-sequitur response wears off.

This response falls into the "Not even wrong" category.

For starters, no one is making an "analogical argument". Jeesh.

StardustyPsyche said...

Of course it is an analogical argument. It is an argument that is incoherent when speaking univocally.

So, the theist claims to be using the terms in the argument analogically, that's what makes it an analogical argument, an argument that makes no sense using words according to their meanings so instead some vague analogy is claimed to make the argument coherent.

When you make arguments employing analogical language you are making an analogical argument, or what rational people simple refer to as gibberish.

Starhopper said...

Stardusty,

Correct me if I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that argument by analogy is "gibberish". Is this what you mean?

StardustyPsyche said...

An "argument" that uses undefined terms isn't an argument at all, it is just a generalized way of expressing some sort of beginning point to start thinking about things.

If you want to use an analogy to try to explain a concept that's fine. That is not a sound argument, it is just a colloquial manner of human speech.

I use analogies to help people to start thinking in a particular direction, such analogical expressions are not sound arguments, just imprecise pedagogical tools.

When the theist claims to have a sound argument for god's essences, then makes an incoherent statement when speaking univocally, then claims to not be speaking univocally, rather, analogically, that is gibberish.

Tossing in the term "analogical" is just an excuse to try to pass off irrational nonsense as some sort of sound argument.

Starhopper said...

Stardusty,

Thank you for letting me know where you're coming from. I happen to think that what you just wrote is "gibberish", but I guess what goes around...

Eric Vestrup said...

My present fledgling understanding of simplicity is that it has an ancient and impressive pedigree, but it also has modern day Christian detractors who view the doctrine (or the version of simplicity they are examining) as incoherent.

Psychologically, parts of it do have that "word salad" feeling to me, the same feeling I get when (say) I try to read modern humanities-related things.

Despite this, I argue with myself that:

(1) I have the same lack of crystal clarity and precision when talking about other God-related things, i.e. his existence, or his goodness, or his omniscience, and so on. Thus, simplicity does not take something for which my mind has the firmest grasp and then make it ungraspable. Simplicity is just more of the same metaphysical shop-talk about God. Obviously, if one things, say the argument from change to a Purely Actual Actualizer is fancy-sounding puffery, then one can dismiss simplicity in the same way. But I think the classical argument from change is sound, or very believable. It carries great weight for me. The same sort of linguistic objections one could level against simplicity could also be brought to a PAA.

(2) Simplicity isn't some doctrine that is tacked on to the list of "things we can say about God", but as I understand things (again, as an amateur and student of these things), simplicity is a consequence of God being the PAA, the Ultimate Cause, because were God to have "parts", he would not be ultimate.

(to be continued...)

Eric Vestrup said...

(3) I think that God not being simple would (somehow, still fleshing this out in my own mind) put God at the top of a pantheon of super-powerful beings. By this I mean that we could conceive of God as the maximal member of the class, maybe something like Robin < Batman < Superman < Thanos < Galactus .... < God. However, for reasons I won't explain in a blog post and am still working out, I don't think it is correct to think of God as an element of a class, or an instance of a kind.

(4) I can think of creaturely analogies for simplicity, that while falling far short, show me that the concept is at least understandable to a limited finite degree. A Dominican friar gave me the example of, in very saintly people, their intellect (which perceives doing good) and their will (which propels them to do the good) seem to unified to some degree. They don't have to think "this is a good thing to do, so I'll do it"; they just do it. In this example, there is a blurring of intellect and will into a single intellect-will act. This act can be viewed as a unity, but from different angles one could talk about intellect, or will. God's unity is the limiting case of this sort of phenemonon.

(to be continued)

Eric Vestrup said...

Continuing my stream of consciousness here:

(5) In mathematics, a topic in which I have some fluency, there are so many well-defined but pathological entities that arise from limit processes or dealing with the continuum. Human beings can never visualize, say, a subset of the real line whose "length" cannot be meaningfully defined without other things breaking down, but such objects exist, and in great profusion. These pathological objects can be defined rigorously in a formal manner, but no human will ever visualize these things as they are in and of themselves. They are so bizarre, so exotic, that they can only be described formally.

But barring some Moses-like experience of "shew my Thy glory!" or some experience like St Thomas had near the end of his life, I live with my metaphysical understanding of God in an analogous way to which I deal or contemplate these pathological mathematical entities.

Thus, for me at my stage of theistic understanding, the case for simplicity is supported directly by other things I understand better. I understand that even some Christian philosophers think versions of simplicity are incoherent. Right now, I do not think it is.

Closing note, I found this article by Dr Feser interesting:
https://theopolisinstitute.com/conversations/simply-irresistible/
I think he makes some of the points I'm making, but of course much better and with more weight than an internet rando like me commenting on a blog.

bmiller said...

Eric,

Doesn't look like your understanding is so fledgling.

I think your item (3) is what trips most people up. God is not just the most perfect example of a powerful being, He is completely unique and singular and so His mode of being and act is not the same as ours. But our mode of being and act is all we have access to and that makes it difficult to see clearly.

As you say, the case is strong for the Purely Actualizing Actualizer, meaning that God must be simple. It follows that the (analogical) attributes of God must then be aspects of the same thing. The Good, the True and the Beautiful can all be part of the same thing in our own experience after all.

bmiller said...

Stardusty,

So, the theist claims to be using the terms in the argument analogically, that's what makes it an analogical argument,



Analogical Argument
Introduction

An analogical argument is an argument in which one concludes that two things are alike in a certain respect because they are alike in other respects.


The argument for the God's simplicity is not an analogical argument.
Since God is simple, then it follows that his "attributes" must be transcendent.
But His "attributes" are not the same as ours just as His mode of being is not the same as ours. So we refer to His "attributes" in an analogical sense when we speak of things like His knowledge, understanding that His mode of knowledge is different than ours.

We make clear that we are speaking in an analogical sense when we speak of His transcendent "attributes" and so have made clear what sense we are using the words.

No one using an "Analogical Argument" except maybe you.

StardustyPsyche said...

That could be one person's definition.

You are using analogical terms, therefore, ultimately, you are using an analogical argument even by your own definition.

G=x, G=s, G=m, and G=n then
x=s=m=n
Thus
essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other, which is incoherent.

But you say it is not incoherent to say essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other, because you are speaking analogically. So you very obviously are making an analogical argument, becuase when one speaks rationally, with words that have meanings, the idea that essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other is gibberish.

Speaking analogically is just a theistic excuse to try to pass off gibberish as though it were some kind of sound rational argument.

bmiller said...

That could be one person's definition.

Yes. A person who knows what he's talking about.

You are using analogical terms, therefore, ultimately, you are using an analogical argument even by your own definition.

You're confused. Tell me step by step how you reached that conclusion.

But you say it is not incoherent to say essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other, because you are speaking analogically.

Good example of showing you didn't even read the very first paragraph of article I linked, nor what I posted more recently.

From the article:

Medieval theories of analogy were a response to problems in three areas: logic, theology, and metaphysics. Logicians were concerned with the use of words having more than one sense, whether completely different, or related in some way. Theologians were concerned with language about God. How can we speak about a transcendent, totally simple spiritual being without altering the sense of the words we use?


Transcendence is idea of how the "analogical" attributes of God are really all the same thing, like The Good, the True and the Beautiful really being aspects of the same thing.

bmiller said...

One doesn't have to agree with this and can raise thoughtful arguments and many have over the centuries. But one would have to actually do some reading to know that.

Starhopper said...

Is divine simplicity perhaps a solution to the dilemma "Is X good because God wills it, or does God will X because it is good?" The concept of simplicity allows us to replace the "or" in the above question with "and" - problem solved!

bmiller said...

Good to see you back in "fighting form" Starhopper.

How was Life on the Mississippi?

Eric Vestrup said...

"Is divine simplicity perhaps a solution to the dilemma 'Is X good because God wills it, or does God will X because it is good?' The concept of simplicity allows us to replace the 'or' in the above question with 'and' - problem solved!"

I think that, if divine simplicity is true, then Euthyphro dilemma is completely neutralized. Instead of being "under" morality or a standard of what is good, God is morality or what is good.

It also seems to me that regardless of one's position on simplicity (true, coherent but false, neither true nor false because it is incoherent), one could still have a third option of Euthyphro where "what is good" is a "part" of God or an element of his nature.

Eric Vestrup said...

As a completely personal side note, my own attempt to think carefully about this stuff and try to learn Thomistic philosophy or thinking comes from a desire to acquire some tools to help myself think and express more carefully things about God in my inner life. I'm always wary of when Christianity sounds like a space opera or some big budget summer blockbuster with insane CGI, and I'm wary of the notion of God being ripped straight from a Hallmark card or Oprah.

So the question would be: how well do I understand God or contemplate him philosophically, all while being normed by what scripture reveals?

For myself, the experience has been very stimulating and intellectually delightful. A lot of my muddleheaded intuitive ideas that I thought only I worried about turn out to be discussed rigorously by the medievals. And, while not one inch further in solutions to great mysteries (Triunity, simplicity, reconciling divine foreknowledge with free will, penal substitution, to name a few), this off-and-on study of the last few years of Thomistic concepts has helped me more rigorously articulate the mysteries and where human knowledge ends and mystery begins. And as a Dominican asserted in one of his online Aquinas videos, merely contemplating these things carefully can bring a man that species of intellectual delight.

I also find that thinking about these things can increase one's devotion as well. Rather than making God an object of study and putting God in a human box, it has reminded me that God is wholly singular and other. I hope I didn't need it in the first place, but this wading into the shallower waters of Thomism really impresses my creatureliness upon me. When contemplating these things, there is for me really this sense of "take of thy sandals, for this is holy ground".

Starhopper said...

"How was Life on the Mississippi?"

Sadly, I never got around to it. I had of course brought along my travel-sized Bible, for some reason started in on the Minor Prophets, and never got beyond them. I read Obadiah with greater insight than ever before. So much there in such a short book!

bmiller said...

Probably a good thing that you didn't have enough time at the hospital to read it, right?

bmiller said...

Eric,

For myself, the experience has been very stimulating and intellectually delightful. A lot of my muddleheaded intuitive ideas that I thought only I worried about turn out to be discussed rigorously by the medievals.

Same for me.

But I would advise newbies against just picking up the Summa Theologica and digging in. That work was for university graduate level theology students who had already showed they were proficient at lower level philosophy courses. Philosophy that few are proficient at at this point in time (although it is gradually being rediscovered). Feser does an excellent job introducing the concepts.

Starhopper said...

"ideas that I thought only I worried about turn out to be discussed rigorously by the medievals"

Ha! About 20 years ago, I became obsessed with learning about the earliest (written) artifacts of human culture. I read Gilgamesh, and Hesiod's Theogony, plus most of the Greeks. (I liked Homer by far the best.) I plowed through the ancient texts of Daoism, Hinduism, and Shintoism (the weirdest of the lot, by the way). I was (sadly) defeated by the Mahabharata, but managed to work my way through most every thing else.

One thing I learned by all that study was that there is nothing truly new. Mankind has not had an original idea for the past 2000 years. Everything has already been discussed, dissected, argued over, and incorporated into every other idea to the point that it's now almost impossible to find a thought's first occurrence.

That said, every generation can discover the old anew, and re-present it to a fresh audience with renewed vigor. That remains.

StardustyPsyche said...

"Mankind has not had an original idea for the past 2000 years"
Nonsense, except for the religious, they are often utterly lacking in originality.

Start with quantum field theory and just keep going.

Digging through ancient texts and going to Christian services or whatever it is you do will indeed lead you to be mired in all the falsehoods of the past with no hope of gaining any new insights into reality.

Just because you can't come up with a new idea doesn't nobody else can.

bmiller said...

Mankind has not had an original idea for the past 2000 years

Yet, some people cannot come to grasp with that fact due to Chronological snobbery.

Even C.S. Lewis had a hard time overcoming it.

Starhopper said...

"Start with quantum field theory and just keep going."

Quantum field theory is not an idea; it's a discovery. Apples and oranges.

StardustyPsyche said...

You obviously do not know what a physics theory is.

They are abstractions, ideas.

If QFT is not an idea then there is no such thing as an idea.