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

[Mountain Man]

Most atheists I know give Craig plenty of respect for his skill at debate. Not much else though. I know a good number of people who think Craig is either a sophist or intentionally dishonest.

And yet watching atheists try and take on Craig's arguments is like watching a man futilely beat his head against a brick wall in the hopes of knocking it down.

[The Pixie]

Arguing with theists often feels like you are banging your head against a brick wall...

[Andius]

Aaannndd,, here's where the poo flingin kicks off!

[Doug Shaver]

And yet watching atheists try and take on Craig's arguments is like watching a man futilely beat his head against a brick wall in the hopes of knocking it down.

Yeah, when the atheists argue with him on stage, Craig usually mops the floor with them.

[WaitingForGodot]

Yeah, when the atheists argue with him on stage, Craig usually mops the floor with them.

Which is important, since truth is determined by rhetoric and charisma. And always being ready with a straw man or handy assumption. Or casual dismissal of anything that gets too inconvenient.

[MaxVel]

Is it just me, or is there a lot of atheist sour grapes in this thread?

This might help atheists: The way some of you appear to feel about WLC's style and approach is something like how many Christians feel about Dawkin's style and approach.

Build a bridge....


...and get over it.


WLC wins a debate: 'Only because he's smarmy and too well-prepared.'

Dawkins produces another half-baked strawman sophomoric rant 'Gee, Dawkins really demolishes all the Christian arguments for God. Now I can be an intellectually satisfied atheist.'

[Seasanctuary]

Is it just me, or is there a lot of atheist sour grapes in this thread?

This might help atheists: The way some of you appear to feel about WLC's style and approach is something like how many Christians feel about Dawkin's style and approach.

Not just Christians.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, when the atheists argue with him on stage, Craig usually mops the floor with them.

In his writings as well.

[Mountain Man]

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

Yes, let's pretend that he has made no contributions to academia outside of debate.

[WaitingForGodot]

Sure. Great, important things. Because what academia was really missing was a solid rationalization for the morality of genocide.

Is it just me, or is there a lot of atheist sour grapes in this thread?

When you start an argument, you don't get to complain when people argue back.

[Mountain Man]

Sure. Great, important things. Because what academia was really missing was a solid rationalization for the morality of genocide.

When all else fails, there's nothing left but to start burning straw men. Am I right, or am I right?

[Seasanctuary]

I have a rather split view of Plantinga. When he argues defensively, he does well...though the way he does it ranges from points I genuinely agree with to points he doesn't even commit to himself.

His offense, on the other hand, lacks the charity toward naturalism that he asks naturalists to show toward his Christianity. For example, he has argued that because morality might be compatible with divine command theory...naturalistic morality has poor prospects. Say what?

[WaitingForGodot]

hen all else fails, there's nothing left but to start burning straw men. Am I right, or am I right?

Nice brains thing there, kid. Maybe instead of trying to be cute for the third time, you could actually tell us what his great contributions are. Was it the whole 'Kalam works if we ignore the difference between creation ex materio and creation ex nihilo' thing? That was brilliant.

[shunyadragon]

And yet watching atheists try and take on Craig's arguments is like watching a man futilely beat his head against a brick wall in the hopes of knocking it down.

Craig's KCA argument has been trashed so many times it qualifies him for a 'Dumpster Diver.'

[Kenny]

Okay, back to the main topic.

Well I suppose, not having read the book, that Plantinga might focus on naturalism providing a person with reasons for supposing that reasoning is impossible.

More or less. The claim is that ultimately the conflict between science and naturalism is epistemic. Believing that science gets us at the truth about the world requires its being reasonable to believe that there is the right sort of fit between our cognitive faculties and the natural world. It is not surprising, given Christian theism, that there would be the right sort of fit. It is surprising that there would be such a fit given naturalism. Indeed, it is unreasonable to believe both that naturalism is true and that there is such a fit. Those who believe that naturalism is true get a defeater for the claim that human cognitive faculties are reliable in the way that it would have to be reasonable for us to believe they are in order for us to trust the deliverances of science.

Of course, that’s just a gloss on the claim (and it’s not the argument for it). I don’t plan to defend the argument in the thread (I’m too busy to make a good go at that, and I myself am not sure what I think about it in all of its details). Plantinga does draw on some of his most recent work on the evolutionary argument against naturalism. His most recent stuff, I think, is far more powerful and persuasive than his older stuff (though, imho, that stuff was pretty good too).

It seems he explores whether or not there is a conflict between Christianity and evolution

Yep. He argues that there isn’t one.

or whether naturalists are in trouble for excluding certain kinds of explanations.

He does defend the ID movement a bit, though he also says some things that are critical of it. I suspect neither of the opposing camps in this debate will be fully satisfied. He also makes his often cited point that Christian theists can afford to be more open minded concerning issues of origins, since there are more options on the table for us.

I did read an article by Plantinga on evolution, where he agreed that there was plenty of evidence for common descent, but hardly any that unguided natural selection was the cause of it. In that article (and to be fair I think he recieved a round of critique for that part) he massively understated the amount of evidence for natural selection, which left me with a mildly sour taste in my mouth.

One thing that Plantinga does do is flag where he is speaking merely as a layperson. I wish more scientists, on all sides of this debate, when return the same courtesy when they delve into issues in philosophy and religion, instead of pretending that their white coats make them experts about everything else.

Though I wonder whether he meant, natural selection (in general) vs unguided natural selection (in particular) if there is a sensible distinction between the two.

He is careful to distinguish the two and insists on the point that natural selection is not to be conflated with unguided natural selection.

I'm also curious about the article about quantum mechanics.

There’s some good stuff in there about different interpretations of QM as they relate to different kinds of models one might put forward as to how God interacts with the world on a day to day basis, whether and how miracles might fit in with those interpretations, etc.

With title like "Can religious faith be defeated?", I wonder what lies behind them. Presumably the answers should be 'Yes, if the evidence is against religious claims, but Christianity is true so we shoudnt find any such evidence', though I'm not sure Plantinga believes that evidence against religious claims is even possible.

Yes, Plantinga thinks that it is possible for there to be evidence against religious claims. Yes, he thinks that religious beliefs (including Christian belief) are, in principle, subject to rational defeat. In particular, though, he discusses how certain religious beliefs (e.g. a Biblically based belief that the Sun is stationary) may, in some cases, be defeated by scientific considerations that oppose them, but not in all such cases. There’s a fairly technical epistemological discussion about the nature of defeaters that ensues from that discussion.

But his modal argument for God's existence and his argument for dualism still stinks.

I think Plantinga’s version of the OA is not persuasive as an argument for the existence of God but is nonetheless valuable for other reasons (e.g. it elucidates the conceptual connection between the traditional theistic belief that God is a maximally great being and the traditional theistic belief that God is a necessary being). As for his arguments for dualism, I think those are pretty good. But to each his own, I guess.