Alvin Plantinga’s new book on Science and Religion is out.

[Kenny]

You are greatly inflating the consequences of a book by Plantinga on this subject.

I doubt it. But we’ll see. I think it has a great deal of potential to introduce a lot of light in an area in which there is mostly heat.

Is there really anything revealed that is genuinely new in the book concerning this argument I have read in a number of his articles?

I’m sure there is. Though I have a hard time keeping track of what he has and hasn’t published elsewhere (he is prolific). One thing nice about this book is that it is aimed at a non-philosophical audience (the target audience was intelligent college level students or people with a college degree), but is still philosophically rigorous (and Plantinga does his usual large print/small print thing to distinguish between the less technical material and the more technical material).

[Kenny]

His offense, on the other hand, lacks the charity toward naturalism that he asks naturalists to show toward his Christianity.

I don’t see that. But maybe I’m benighted because of my own biases

For example, he has argued that because morality might be compatible with divine command theory...naturalistic morality has poor prospects. Say what?

I read that article. IIRC, the main point was that establishing the claim that moral truths supervene on natural truths does not establish that there is a naturalistically acceptable account of morality. And so, the prospects for establishing that there is such a morality are poor. But it has been a while since I read it.

[Seasanctuary]

I read that article. IIRC, the main point was that establishing the claim that moral truths supervene on natural truths does not establish that there is a naturalistically acceptable account of morality. And so, the prospects for establishing that there is such a morality are poor. But it has been a while since I read it.

It's his definition of "naturalistically acceptable" that's so odd. He seems to think naturalists can only accept ideas which are unacceptable to theists.

A parody:

T: God makes it rain.
N: It looks like rain is a natural occurrence.
T: But maybe God is making nature rain.
N: Ok.
T: Since rain might be a supernatural event, it's a problem for your worldview.
N: What?! I could just point out that rain might be a 100% natural event, so it's a problem for your worldview.
T: But it's begging the question when you do it.

[Kenny]

It's his definition of "naturalistically acceptable" that's so odd. He seems to think naturalists can only accept ideas which are unacceptable to theists.

A parody:

T: God makes it rain.
N: It looks like rain is a natural occurrence.
T: But maybe God is making nature rain.
N: Ok.
T: Since rain might be a supernatural event, it's a problem for your worldview.
N: What?! I could just point out that rain might be a 100% natural event, so it's a problem for your worldview.
T: But it's begging the question when you do it.

I don't think he argues the way you think he does. But I'd have to go back and read the artical again.

[nightbringer]

Two comments to make:

1. I couldn't see where the attack was supposed to be in Plantinga's weird "morality is kinda a problem for naturalists ... supervenience RAWR" paper either.
2. I'm hoping I can get this book for Christmas.

[Seasanctuary]

http://www.ammonius.org/assets/pdfs/plantinga.pdf

In case anyone is wondering what we're talking about.

[Kenny]

http://www.ammonius.org/assets/pdfs/plantinga.pdf

In case anyone is wondering what we're talking about.

I just brought it up on my kindle. I actually had it on my items to look at again for some independent research I'm doing on the impact that various supervenience theses have (or don't have, as the case may be) on ontological disputes. Time to kill two birds with one stone. I'll get back to you.

[nightbringer]

I just brought it up on my kindle.

Another thing on my Christmas list...

[Kenny]

Another thing on my Christmas list...

Get the kindle keyboard with 3G.

[nightbringer]

Get the kindle keyboard with 3G.

I think I'll have to settle for the cheap one. Doubt my folks could afford any other. Can't see that I'd be missing out on too much that would bother me though.

...or is that not so? Go for it, salesman!

[Kenny]

I think I'll have to settle for the cheap one. Doubt my folks could afford any other. Can't see that I'd be missing out on too much that would bother me though.

...or is that not so? Go for it, salesman!

It probably is so. I just know I love my kindle keyboard. I rationalized away the expense by telling myself I needed it to help me study for orals (and, actually, it was a huge help).

[shunyadragon]

http://www.ammonius.org/assets/pdfs/plantinga.pdf

In case anyone is wondering what we're talking about.

This reference will not open for me.

[nightbringer]

This reference will not open for me.

Link works fine for me.

[shunyadragon]

http://www.ammonius.org/assets/pdfs/plantinga.pdf

In case anyone is wondering what we're talking about.

I got to work by the back door. The following problem caught my eye right off.

Plantinga

'I propose to support the claim that naturalism cannot accommodate morality—not by showing directly that it can’t, but by displaying the failure of the most natural way of arguing that it can.'

© source where applicable

[Doug Shaver]

Which is important, since truth is determined by rhetoric and charisma.

Nonsense. People are persuaded by rhetoric and charisma. Truth has no necessary connection with what it takes to persuade people.