Here is another voice of reason out there…gives one hope.
I say this as someone who cannot imagine believing what he believes. But even those who cannot accept the theist alternative should admit that Plantinga’s criticisms of naturalism are directed at the deepest problem with that view—how it can account for the appearance, through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry, of conscious beings like ourselves, capable of discovering those laws and understanding the universe that they govern. Defenders of naturalism have not ignored this problem, but I believe that so far, even with the aid of evolutionary theory, they have not proposed a credible solution. Perhaps theism and materialist naturalism are not the only alternatives.
They indeed have not proposed a credible solution and I have great respect for any atheist willing to admit as much even if he finds theism or transcendence impossible to believe.
Byzantine Dream 
Hi, Darrell-
Sorry to leave you hanging here. My mind may have been elsewhere.. on the world series, perhaps.
This article is an embarrassment all around, both for Nagel and Plantinga. Plantinga trots out views that should cause him to be drummed out of the academy, and Nagel asserts that he disagrees with great respect while not really saying why.
Why not propose a sensus schizophreniatus, or a sensus paranoidus? All Plantinga is doing is to claim that to protect his illogical claims about god, he can assert that god has implanted these beliefs or perceptions in him, making a neatly circular argument. Who is to keep any psychopath from claiming the same thing? Nothing whatsoever.
The upshot is that, contrary to his claims, his “basic” beliefs are not axiomatic at all, but are all, without exception, subject to empirical test and calibration. Some of that testing may have happened through evolution, giving us some basic accuracy in senses like vision and hearing. Others happen through childhood, as we stumble around to improve our models of the world. Nothing is given, and nothing should be taken without reason.
Hoisting in a deus ex Machina to say that he is allowed to believe nonsense, and that, as a cherry on top, divine perceptors like him are better than everyone else ” In addition, God acts in the world more selectively by “enabling Christians to see the truth of the central teachings of the Gospel.” “ .. well, this is not only philosophical hogwash, but a narcissistic insult to everyone who actually can use their brain.
I won't even get into the insults he pays to evolution and science in general. He at least has the integrity to say the fine tuning arguments lack a control.. any outside reference by which we can judge how unusual they are. But why then deem humanity to be some unusual occurrence demanding divine intervention? It sure looks like a painful up-from poverty/nothing story to me.
“But even those who cannot accept the theist alternative should admit that Plantinga’s criticisms of naturalism are directed at the deepest problem with that view—how it can account for the appearance, through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry, of conscious beings like ourselves, capable of discovering those laws and understanding the universe that they govern. Defenders of naturalism have not ignored this problem, but I believe that so far, even with the aid of evolutionary theory, they have not proposed a credible solution. Perhaps theism and materialist naturalism are not the only alternatives.”
No, I think Plantinga is just bleeting out the catechism of his involuntary belief, however acquired. The fact is that naturalism has never shown a god or had one necessary to its explanations. Every time we learned anything, it turned out different. Do we have ultimate explanations in naturalism? No. Do theists have ultimate explanations in any sense other than slapping “god” on the problem and calling it solved? No. Their solutions lead nowhere and predict nothing useful. Theism is not “an alternative” theory at all, it is a psychological projection masquerading as a theory.
In that connection, I might ask whether you feel a jolt when I refer to god as “she” or “it” as it goes about and performs its signs and wonders. That is because god is a projection of the father archetype, and referring to it as some other gender induces dissonance because that is really all it is- whether caring or domineering, a father image only.
LikeLike
Burk,
The only jolt I ever receive in your comments is when it becomes so obvious you have no idea what anyone is talking about.
And perhaps your atheism is simply a psychological projection…but how would you ever know?
LikeLike
I would know if my model of the world were incorrect on the evidence: if seas parted when I prayed for that, if loaves and fished multiplied for me (or anyone else), if I could heal myself by praying.. you get the picture. I would know if DNA got rearranged to specially enable species to escape extinction by climate change, or if dark matter turned out to respond to prayer in flying around space. That sort of thing. But as long as god stays so well hidden, then atheism is not the projection.
LikeLike
So let me get this straight. Because God has never answered your prayers the way you thought it should be done and because God has never acted or operated in a fashion no on this blog or one’s like Eric’s has ever posited God has to act or operate, and because you CHOOSE to interpret any evidence a certain way (philosophical naturalism) God remains (shocker) hidden to you, you feel a case has been made?
How insightful and powerful a critique. Wow. Yep, no psychological projecting going on here.
LikeLike
Very well, I can't really say how Eric believes god should appear, with his feelings in the belly and the like.
But as for you.. how would you propose that god would or would not appear to a fair-minded person with no cultural or other predispositions for or against the concept? What I have heard is that god sort of makes “everything” make sense. Not the most explicit form of detection, really. Do you have anything better?
LikeLike
Well as for a “fair-minded person with no cultural or other predispositions for or against the concept…” that certainly leaves you out, right?
Further, there is no such person as far as not being always/already situated within cultural and other predispositional aspects, although I think people who are open-minded can be fair, especially those who are aware (hint) they are culturally and otherwise situated.
Burk, until you are willing to “hear” what other people are really asserting when they use the word “God” and until you are willing to consider the Judeo-Christian narrative (which is the narrative of God’s appearing) as it is explicated (not as you imagine it) by its best expositors (and not by fundamentalists—whom are the only people you are really arguing against—the rest of us have no idea how your assertions apply remotely to anything), then things will always be “hidden” to you. That is your choice and it has nothing to do with “evidence” or any other excuse.
LikeLike
I think the “reasonable person” construct is common in the law- you should be familiar with it. You are right that I am not that person, in terms of being unbiased. But the point is that the evidence you have needs to be sufficient to surmount some minimal level of skepticism.
If I say the earth is flat, then you have warrant to say I am wrong. Likewise, if you insist that the testaments are the record of god's appearing, I will say that that is not good evidence at all. It is composed of a lot of typical mythological motifs, with very modest historical foundation. This kind of thing may resonate psychologically with many people, but as evidence on its own ground, it is as worthless as the book of mormon is for the goings-on of ancient America. Well, not quite that bad, but with myths so rampant, there is no good reason to suspend the general rule of historical continuity to these extremely biased tales from believers.
I know I do not “hear” it. But do physicists insist that you “hear” specially and put down your thinking cap in order to believe in quarks and gluons? No, they don't.
LikeLike
If we were going by the “reasonable person” construct as thought of in law, you forget that the vast majority of people are theists or at least believe in some sort of transcendence which would make them the “reasonable” category. You belong to a small minority especially if we consider history, so you do not fit that construct. It is comparable to the “community standard” idea.
Again, you are unable to “hear” what people are saying when they use the word “God.” God is not like a quark or gluon. You are not going to pick God up on radar—how many times do we have to go over this? It matters little that you discount the history—the fact remains that there is a narrative of God being made known, so the “hiddenness” excuse is just that, and excuse.
LikeLike
Darrell-
Remember the question you asked. How I do know I am not projecting vs those who propose a god? Without specific pieces of evidence that pass minimal critique, it is the propsal of unseen beings and events that stands naked. With formulations like “you are unable to “hear” how people use the word god” and – it makes everything else make sense to me – you are speaking in precisely the language of psychological projection- a language about how you view the world, not how the world is.
LikeLike
We’ve been over this. First, the “evidence” clearly does pass the minimal for the majority of people and cultures past and present (mostly because the vast majority have never viewed evidence through a philosophical naturalism prism—a short lived view as history goes). Otherwise, we would have a situation where it would be completely reversed with theists the minority in history and presently. I can see why you didn’t want to go any further down the road of the “reasonable person” or “community standard.”
Further, since you think of God as an object or some other natural “force” that can be picked up on radar or measured somehow (seen) the whole appeal to evidence (in the sense of only the evidence I will accept because I have presuppositions that dictate such) has nothing to do with what Christians are asserting and leaves you with straw man and begging the question arguments, which sums up the entirety of your articulations here and elsewhere. Your whole appeal to “evidence” has been deconstructed and unmasked so many times, it is almost comical at this point for you to keep trotting it out.
Your atheism is simply how you “view” the world and is not a direct articulation of how the world “is.” I’m not going to worry or delve into what psychological or past experiences may have led you to this view, but only hubris would lead someone to believe it was some clinical robotic calculation. You came to this view with your entire being, will, emotions, heart, mind, history, experiences, and so on.
LikeLike