Plantinga: The God Delusion

[Al Moritz]

Here is a brilliant review of Dawkins's "The God Delusion", brilliant with only minor flaws:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

It is by Alvin Plantinga, a theist philosopher who is held in the highest regard by Quentin Smith, one of the house-hold names for American philosophical atheism. Quentin thinks  Plantinga to be so influential that he holds him largely responsible for initiating the desecularisation of academic philosophy from the 1960s onwards:

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/metaphilosophy_of_naturalism.htm

A few side notes:

a) The flatness problem of the universe that Plantinga mentions is largely believed to be solved by the scientific theory of inflation (inflation is supposed to have taken place in the first few split moments of the universe), although nobody has yet shown the required inflaton field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

However, even without the flatness problem there is enough extraordinary specificity in the laws of nature that the strength of the fine-tuning argument is not affected.

b) The quote of Stephen Hawking should read (editing problem in the text):

reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 10¹² at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 10¹⁰ K would have resulted in the Universe's starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 K.

c) I don't necessarily think that Plantinga implies with his sentence:

"Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life",

that he holds impossible an origin of life by natural causes (which, in the theist's view, are the secondary causes by which God creates).

Rather, it is clear that this sentence is just part of the larger argument in which Plantinga plays along with Dawkins's argument about God and DNA and along the way refutes it philosophically.

***

This time I will not participate in the discussion, but sit back and enjoy.

Al

[orbital]

That was long, and I have to re-read to fully grasp it, but a couple of things on simplicity that made me scratch my head. First of all Plantinga's (and the other theists' he mentions) insistence on God being simple as opposed to complex is deceiving in the sense that the description of a God in spirit not composed of complex parts does not mean 'simple' in the sense that they use in their arguments. A spirit, if there was one, is by no means 'simple' simply because it is not made of complex parts.

Secondly, and more importantly, if God is simple this would refute the most basic theist argument that complexity cannot arise from simplicity wouldn't it?

[greg]

Secondly, and more importantly, if God is simple this would refute the most basic theist argument that complexity cannot arise from simplicity wouldn't it?

so i guess both atheists and theists are wrong.

Having learned that, i'm sure there will be a new belief system that conquers them all- The-A-ists!  0:)

[drogulus]

Secondly, and more importantly, if God is simple this would refute the most basic theist argument that complexity cannot arise from simplicity wouldn't it?

    Outstanding! It would validate "no skyhooks, only cranes" by admitting that cranes do all the work. If simplicity doesn't require initial complexity, complexity goes back to being the product of, rather than the cause of, the processes that constitute our universe.

[Brian]

A pity my paperback copy of The God Delusion is on loan to a friend; in the updated introduction I think Dawkins addressed Plantinga's arguments briefly.

[Brian]

A few folks on the Dawkins forum have read Plantinga. An interesting read. 

[Brian]

A few folks on the Dawkins forum have read Plantinga. An interesting read. 

Just want to bolster my recommendation. The more you scroll down, the more interesting the reading gets. 

[drogulus]

A pity my paperback copy of The God Delusion is on loan to a friend; in the updated introduction I think Dawkins addressed Plantinga's arguments briefly.

     Yes, he does. Plantinga would be an embarassment to philosophy, if he were not an apologist. That excuses everything since apologists are not required to believe what they say. They are sham reasoners (for more on sham reasoning see Susan Haack: Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism).

[Shrunk]

     Yes, he does. Plantinga would be an embarassment to philosophy, if he were not an apologist. That excuses everything since apologists are not required to believe what they say. They are sham reasoners (for more on sham reasoning see Susan Haack: Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism).

What did Dawkins say about this review?

[Saul]

Here is the entire debate between Rabbi Boteach and Christopher Hitchens .

The Rabbi made a fool out of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

[Shrunk]

Here is the entire debate between Rabbi Boteach and Christopher Hitchens .

The Rabbi made a fool out of him.

You think?  No one else who watched the debate seems to think so, as you can see here, here and here.

A few of the comments worth repeating, just because they're kind of funny:

"In the cab on the way home, we coined a new phrase: 'To Shmuley,' denoting the making of pathetic, unsupported non-sequitur arguments and the taking of flailingly weak intellectual positions, with a dash of name-dropping bluster thrown in for good measure. Excruciating."

"After the way Hitchens treated Boteach, it was a little hypocritical of him to chastise God for condoning bloodbaths."

"Hitchens wiped the floor with Boteach to such an extent that it was actually Hitchens who lost, in a sense, just by showing up. Lost stature, that is."

"Here's the thing... despite both Hitchens and Boteach being annoying, self-righteous egomaniacs, there's a difference between the two. Last night's debate taught me that Hitchens is an intelligent, annoying, self-righteous egomaniac. I wish I could say the same for Boteach."

I can't judge for myself at the moment, as the computer I'm using doesn't have sound.  Thanks for the link, anyway.  I'll try keep an open mind while watching.

[Saul]

You think?  No one else who watched the debate seems to think so, as you can see here, here and here.

A few of the comments worth repeating, just because they're kind of funny:

"In the cab on the way home, we coined a new phrase: 'To Shmuley,' denoting the making of pathetic, unsupported non-sequitur arguments and the taking of flailingly weak intellectual positions, with a dash of name-dropping bluster thrown in for good measure. Excruciating."

"After the way Hitchens treated Boteach, it was a little hypocritical of him to chastise God for condoning bloodbaths."

"Hitchens wiped the floor with Boteach to such an extent that it was actually Hitchens who lost, in a sense, just by showing up. Lost stature, that is."

"Here's the thing... despite both Hitchens and Boteach being annoying, self-righteous egomaniacs, there's a difference between the two. Last night's debate taught me that Hitchens is an intelligent, annoying, self-righteous egomaniac. I wish I could say the same for Boteach."

I can't judge for myself at the moment, as the computer I'm using doesn't have sound.  Thanks for the link, anyway.  I'll try keep an open mind while watching.

You measure your understanding and your ideaology based on what others say about the debates?

Dont you have your own brains?

Listen to the towering questions the Rabbi asked and how he destroyed Hitchens' foundation.

[Ephemerid]

"Here's the thing... despite both Hitchens and Boteach being annoying, self-righteous egomaniacs, there's a difference between the two. Last night's debate taught me that Hitchens is an intelligent, annoying, self-righteous egomaniac. I wish I could say the same for Boteach."

That's a pretty accurate summary there.  I'm far from a fan of Hitchens (I don't care for his anti-religious stance at all), but he carried himself quite well in that debate...

[greg]

You measure your understanding and your ideaology based on what others say about the debates?

Dont you have your own brains?

Listen to the towering questions the Rabbi asked and how he destroyed Hitchens' foundation.

"Shrunk" did say this:

I can't judge for myself at the moment, as the computer I'm using doesn't have sound.  Thanks for the link, anyway.  I'll try keep an open mind while watching.

[drogulus]

What did Dawkins say about this review?

     I don't know if he's made a statement about it. He did address arguments for the existence of gods, including the design and ontological aruments (the latter now associated with Plantinga), in Chapter 3 and then goes on to discuss arguments against in Chapter 4.

     I note that Marxist critic Terry Eagleton agrees with believers who scorn Dawkin's reasoning on the grounds that Dawkins doesn't pay sufficient attention to the subtleties of theology. This is not surprising when you think about it, since Marxists, postmodernists, and religionists all relativize conceptions of truth to beliefs. So, if I want to know what's true about Roman Paganism I can do all the research I want, but until I actually sacrifice a white bull to Jupiter I'm not allowed to say it's false.

     Plantinga says that Dawkins is assuming materialism when he asserts that a creator god must be complex. He's also jumping to a conclusion himself when he treats the properties of any supernatural being as infinitely variable for the purposes of his argument (complex enough to create a universe, simple enough to be a source of things) and yet unknowable for the purposes of evading any analysis but his own.

     Besides, Plantinga is assuming materialism, too, if he thinks he can avoid the regression problem by positing simplicity. Why would he need to do that unless he was trying to avoid the implications of Dawkins's supposedly materialism-based argument?? Why is he trying to fix a problem he says he doesn't have?

[Norbeone]

Platinga makes exactly the same 'mistakes' that he accuses Dawkins of, in that he claims that Dawkins is wrong, so God must exist. Great argument   

And Saul.....Boteach did NOT wipe the floor with Hitchens. The only the reason you think so is because he supports the side that you cling so pathetically onto. That IS the only reason. Why don't you give reasons as to why Boteach was so convincing, and not Hitchens? No.....that would require actual thought, and from that, logic and reason which would, in turn, attack the fanatic fundamentalism from which you take so much comfort.

Not going to happen.

[orbital]

Here is the entire debate between Rabbi Boteach and Christopher Hitchens .

The Rabbi made a fool out of him.

The other way around actually 
I watched the whole thing, and the Rabbi was preaching rather than debating. Even the presenter (who is, too, a rabbi I think?) made some fun of Mr. Boteach. It was really embarrassing to watch him talk about scientists who have changed their theories about the age of the earth. Clearly for someone who has no respect for scientific method it must look that way 

[Saul]

The other way around actually 
I watched the whole thing, and the Rabbi was preaching rather than debating. Even the presenter (who is, too, a rabbi I think?) made some fun of Mr. Boteach. It was really embarrassing to watch him talk about scientists who have changed their theories about the age of the earth. Clearly for someone who has no respect for scientific method it must look that way 

The other Rabbi is not a real Rabbi because he is reform, and perhaps a heretic himself.

Rabbi Boteach debated in a great manner, asking great questions and bringing towering points to the discussions. What did Hitchy did besides cast some stupid jokes , talking like an arrogant moron who thinks he rules the world. The Rabbi, if you listen carefully asked extremly strong questions...

Can you answer them?

[Saul]

And you know what's also sad?

Christopher Hitchens is Jewish:

Wikipedia

Ethnic identity

In an article in the Guardian Unlimited on April 14, 2002, Hitchens says he is Jewish because Jewish descent is matrilineal. According to Hitchens, when his brother, Peter, took his new bride to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her 90s, Dodo said, "She's Jewish, isn't she?" and then announced: "Well, I've got something to tell you. So are you." She said that her real surname was Levin, not Lynn, and that her ancestors were Blumenthals from Poland.[99] According to The Observer of 14 April 2002, Christopher "insists that he is Jewish," and explored the issue in depth in the title essay of his book Prepared for the Worst.

In a column he wrote for the Los Angeles Times on February 9, 2006, Hitchens wrote, "my grandmother told me as an adult that both she and my mother were Jewish, and it sent me looking for my forebears on the German-Polish border". Peter Hitchens disputes that the brothers have significant Jewish ancestry, adding that "they are only one 32nd Jewish".[99] Nonetheless, according to Halakha, Jewish maternal lineage guarantees one to legally be considered a "full-blooded" Jew, regardless of the father's ethnicity or religion.

[Ephemerid]

The other Rabbi is not a real Rabbi because he is reform, and perhaps a heretic himself.