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

[Whag]

Based on my run of question to you thus far and your replies I'm beginning to wonder. I think it would serve you to read the book and stop dilly dallying, if you know what I mean?

Peace,
Eric.

I have no plans to buy his book. Several people here apparently have read it and can't synthesize what his proposal is.

[shunyadragon]

Why should he go back and answer your hastily edited post?

Frankly, all this esoteric talk about universal theism is boring and long-winded. Plantinga proposes something be done about this "problem," right? What is that "something"? I don't really think you or Plantinga knows. Someone would have spelled it out by now. We're on page 18!

Such negative and combative attitudes do not contribute to any sort of positive dialogue. If you take such topics as 'boring and long winded,' why are you here? Is your purpose to be negative and combative in dialogues with theists. I sensed this combative negative attitude before when you did not often respond to my posts.

The question of 'universal theism' is an important one the traditional theists classically dodge clinging to 'one and only' ancient world views.It is an issue you need to consider instead of taking the position of combative avoidance.

[headheart]

I have no plans to buy his book. Several people here apparently have read it and can't synthesize what his proposal is.

Well?

Peace,
Eric.

[Whag]

The question of 'universal theism' is an important one the traditional theists classically dodge clinging to 'one and only' ancient world views.It is an issue you need to consider instead of taking the position of combative avoidance.

I see universal theism as countered by universal doubt, so in that way it's not a strong apologia for theism. As it relates to ID, which is the whole point of this discussion, it is entirely irrelevant and muddles the issue of epistemology. This is why Plantinga's suggestion about what should be done about it is apparently too convoluted to express. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see it expressed so I can take it on. I suspect it's some form of naturalistic epistemology, which is pretty easy to refute.

I didn't see your posts that you expected me to respond to. Please point me to them and I will.

[Whag]

Well?

Peace,
Eric.

Well what?

[headheart]

I see universal theism as countered by universal doubt, so in that way it's not a strong apologia for theism. As it relates to ID, which is the whole point of this discussion, it is entirely irrelevant and muddles the issue of epistemology. This is why Plantinga's suggestion about what should be done about it is apparently too convoluted to express. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see it expressed so I can take it on. I suspect it's some form of naturalistic epistemology, which is pretty easy to refute.

I didn't see your posts that you expected me to respond to. Please point me to them and I will.

<Sarcasm>

I guess you know all about that.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[headheart]

Well what?

The book doofus! ( >>> opening post )











Goodbye,
headheart

"Pretending"

[Doug Shaver]

You've obviously read it and reviewed it already and have a good answer for Whag

Actually, I have not read the book that is the topic of this thread, but I have read some of Plantinga's other books and a few articles that he has published about science and naturalism. I try not to comment directly on books before I read them, but everything I have heard about this one so far leads me to doubt that it conveys any thinking that differs importantly from what he has previously published.

[headheart]

Actually, I have not read the book that is the topic of this thread, but I have read some of Plantinga's other books and a few articles that he has published about science and naturalism. I try not to comment directly on books before I read them, but everything I have heard about this one so far leads me to doubt that it conveys any thinking that differs importantly from what he has previously published.

That's some good advice for those who do.
I think my real problem is understanding what Alvin's written in this book as he's really good at juggling so many different ideas around at the same time. A master juggler if you will.

I'm sure that ye philosophers who are used to the language and terminology should be able to zip through his book in one sitting, but for the moment I am trundling on through the dark woods of the mind of yet another philosopher and having singed my wings in the past I'm reluctant to comment with any sort of authority at this time.

It's nevertheless fairly engaging and will keep me busy for a few months before I even begin to review it. The truth is I don't think I will for it is a little outside of my own radar, if you know what I mean?

Peace,
Eric.

[Seasanctuary]

And it would be nice if some of his defenders would summarize what he proposes humankind do with respect to honoring God in the sciences.

He thinks naturalism is a false philosophical addition that's never part of proper science. Maybe God, spirits, etc. isn't part of a scientist's "evidence base" if that particular scientist is a naturalist, but Christians KNOW the supernatural is real and know some things about God's nature, so scientists who are Christians can properly do science that incorporates this religious evidence base.

For example, Christian scientists already know that unguided evolution is false because God created humankind intentionally in his own image. They already know that moral psychology is not just a matter of natural selection. So at least these sorts of things can be used to guide research toward fruitful areas and avoid known-false directions, even if they're popular because atheists want them to be true.

[magellan004]

He thinks naturalism is a false philosophical addition that's never part of proper science. Maybe God, spirits, etc. isn't part of a scientist's "evidence base" if that particular scientist is a naturalist, but Christians KNOW the supernatural is real and know some things about God's nature, so scientists who are Christians can properly do science that incorporates this religious evidence base.

For example, Christian scientists already know that unguided evolution is false because God created humankind intentionally in his own image. They already know that moral psychology is not just a matter of natural selection. So at least these sorts of things can be used to guide research toward fruitful areas and avoid known-false directions, even if they're popular because atheists want them to be true.

Excellent post.

Magellan

[headheart]

Hi Magellan,

I agree, that is a very useful working summary.


Seasanctuary,

Though I would most definitely have problems with such a view I am truly grateful for your clear minded evaluation of this. (post 295)

Peace,
headheart

[Whag]

Excellent post.

Magellan

Which you completely misunderstood. There is no "such religious evidence base" and certainly no way to incorporate it into scientific research. The point is that religion cannot "guide research toward fruitful areas and avoid known-false directions," even though some like Craig, Plantinga, and Hovind insist it can.

Plantinga proposes classic ID, just as I suspected from reading his previous articles on teleology.

[headheart]

Which you completely misunderstood. There is no "such religious evidence base" and certainly no way to incorporate it into scientific research. The point is that religion cannot "guide research toward fruitful areas and avoid known-false directions," even though some like Craig, Plantinga, and Hovind insist it can.

Plantinga proposes classic ID, just as I suspected from reading his previous articles on teleology.

Crumbs Whag! What are you wasting precious time arguing with Magellan for, when you could respond directly to Sea's excellent summary. (post 295)

Come on lad, get to it!

Peace,
headheart

[Seasanctuary]

There's also a decent chapter-by-chapter summary here.