Good Reads

These look like good books, here and here. They are definitely on my list of future reads.

Nice endorsement for Plantinga’s book:

“It’s astonishing that so many scientists, philosophers, and theologians think there is a serious conflict between science and theistic religion. In this superb book, the world’s leading philosopher of religion explains, with characteristic wit and perceptiveness, why none of the main reasons for thinking there is such a conflict are even remotely successful.” –Mike Bergmann, Purdue University (that bastion of fundamentalism)

Amen to that.

This entry was posted in Alvin Plantinga, Books. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Good Reads

  1. Burk Braun says:

    I will enjoy hearing your reviews of these ideas. However, prima facie, any system of thought that posits virgin birth, souls, cosmic creator agents, god-become-man, man-ascended-to-heaven, life-after-death, etc.. has a lot to answer for on the scientific front, where these ideas find either no or negative evidence. I hope you read with a modicum of skepticism, since theology's capacity to square incovenient circles far exceeds the reach of reason.

    Like

  2. Darrell says:

    So Bergmann’s statement didn’t even slow you down? Wow. Since no one is asserting or suggesting that empiricism would or even could have anything to do with any of this, maybe that’s one of the things he finds “astonishing.” Has anyone ever mentioned to you that empiricism does not equal “science” but falls into philosophical theory? So there may be conflicts with your peculiar faith, your scientism/empiricism, but most see no conflict at all because most are not empiricists/believers in scientism. You are going to have to evangelize better.

    Like

  3. Burk Braun says:

    If I could be concrete about this, does empiricism have nothing to say about whether we have souls? Or whether it is plausible for a virgin birth to have taken place, or that people were raised from the dead by supernatural means?

    And if you disavow empiricism, how do you understand science operating?

    Like

  4. Darrell says:

    “If I could be concrete about this, does empiricism have nothing to say about whether we have souls? Or whether it is plausible for a virgin birth to have taken place, or that people were raised from the dead by supernatural means?”

    Are you asking why can’t we pick up souls on x-rays? Are you also suggesting that you can empirically prove whether or not something did or did not happen in history? Empiricism is limited to, “…a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience.”

    “And if you disavow empiricism, how do you understand science operating?”

    I don’t disavow empiricism. You are mixing categories again. If I want to know if the water is cold, I touch it. If I want to know whether or not I have a soul, there is nothing for me to touch but I wouldn’t even try or think about knowing or proving it that way because I know “cold” and “soul” are not the same thing or same category of idea. That says nothing about whether “cold” is truer than “soul” or that one exists but not the other. How in the world can you confuse these? How in the world do think the thousands, if not millions, of theists who are also doctors and scientists navigate these clear and obvious differences? Do you think they disavow empiricism? Really?

    Like

Comments are closed.