Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief

[dance]

Hi. Has anyone read Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief? It seems like the kind of book people around this site may have read. Plantinga is a high profile epistemologist currently teaching and writing at Notre Dame. In the book he develops his idea of "warrant." Basically, warranted beliefs are beliefs that are 'ok' to have - you know, like, as a rational human being existing in space and time and whatnot? After finishing with warrant, he constructs what he calls the "Calvin/Acquinas Model" of Christianity, a lowest common denominator of sorts for Christian theology, which he claims would meet all the criteria for warranted belief. Theres more in the book, but its been months since I opened it and I can't remember everything in detail. Has anyone read it? What kind of impressions did you get?

[Kuroikaze]

I hadn't heard of him before, so I looked him up. I read similar arguments in books in some of my theology classes in college.

 

His main argument seems to be that a belief in god is axiomatic and thus needs no evidence to justify belief. To quote the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, I think that argument is a load of dingo's kidneys.

 

The main problem being that we must be choosy as to what we consider an axiom. I cannot think of any idea we consider to be axiomatic that wouldn't be expressible as pure mathematics. It seems to me that in order for us to take something as an axiom we must be fairly certain that no proof could EVER be proffered for or against the idea, because the idea is so basic that reason itself would unravel if it were questioned.

 

It seems that god's existence is not something that falls into this group. From what I read I think he does want to argue that reason unravels without god in the picture. His arguments about evolution destroying the naturalistic world view suggest as much. I think his argument on this is also problematic.

 

His argument here amounts to saying that evolution favors survival not truth, so if the basis of our reason is formed through evolution then our reason cannot be trusted. While it is true that faulty reasoning may sometimes lead to a useful conclusion, (a.k.a. one that allows us to survive) it could not be trusted give us a useful conclusion consistently. Thus, I would argue, that through a process of empirical judgments our reason develops and is refined into more accurate reasoning. While we can never be certain that our reasoning is perfect, the fact that it is useful in a variety of situations suggest that it is fairly reliable.

[dance]

I hadn't heard of him before, so I looked him up. I read similar arguments in books in some of my theology classes in college.

 

His main argument seems to be that a belief in god is axiomatic and thus needs no evidence to justify belief. To quote the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, I think that argument is a load of dingo's kidneys.

 

The main problem being that we must be choosy as to what we consider an axiom. I cannot think of any idea we consider to be axiomatic that wouldn't be expressible as pure mathematics. It seems to me that in order for us to take something as an axiom we must be fairly certain that no proof could EVER be proffered for or against the idea, because the idea is so basic that reason itself would unravel if it were questioned.

 

It seems that god's existence is not something that falls into this group. From what I read I think he does want to argue that reason unravels without god in the picture. His arguments about evolution destroying the naturalistic world view suggest as much. I think his argument on this is also problematic.

 

I thought an axiom was just something to start with, not something that was undeniable. An assumption. I mean, even math breaks down when you go far enough. I think Plantinga just wants people to stop trying to prove God exists, and perhaps also realize they don't have to. All they have to do, he says, is weigh all the evidence available to them in the light of what they think they know, and from there decide what is reasonable and unreasonable to believe. Very postmodern, believe it or not.

 

His argument here amounts to saying that evolution favors survival not truth, so if the basis of our reason is formed through evolution then our reason cannot be trusted. While it is true that faulty reasoning may sometimes lead to a useful conclusion, (a.k.a. one that allows us to survive) it could not be trusted give us a useful conclusion consistently. Thus, I would argue, that through a process of empirical judgments our reason develops and is refined into more accurate reasoning. While we can never be certain that our reasoning is perfect, the fact that it is useful in a variety of situations suggest that it is fairly reliable.

 

I was pretty resistant when I first read his objection to evolution. But, from what I've read about the history and philosophy of science, it seems to me that the point he's making doesn't accomplish much. All we can reason about is our experience, and who knows what other senses currently unavailable to us would reveal about our world? Google transhumanist and posthuman to get an idea of what I mean. Plantinga uses this argument to refute people who argue that evolution develops rational capacities aimed at discovering truth, and he's right. That doesn't then mean that our reason is flawed, or that evolution is wrong, or that God is necessary. That's my take, anyway.

[Kuroikaze]

I thought an axiom was just something to start with, not something that was undeniable. An assumption. I mean, even math breaks down when you go far enough. I think Plantinga just wants people to stop trying to prove God exists, and perhaps also realize they don't have to. All they have to do, he says, is weigh all the evidence available to them in the light of what they think they know, and from there decide what is reasonable and unreasonable to believe. Very postmodern, believe it or not.

 

An assumption, yes, I would agree with that, but an axiom is an assumption precisely because it beyond testability. Generally it is beyond testability because it is foundational to rational thought, in other words rational thought would cease to be rational if it were questioned.

 

The law of non-contradiction could be considered an axiom.

 

Postmodern hmm? That might explain why his arguments left a bad impression on me. I've never much cared for most postmodernist philosophy. Perhaps my mind just works in too much of a concrete way, but it seems most postmodernists spend their time using reason to argue that reason is not totally reliable. It seems circular to me.

 

I was pretty resistant when I first read his objection to evolution. But, from what I've read about the history and philosophy of science, it seems to me that the point he's making doesn't accomplish much. All we can reason about is our experience, and who knows what other senses currently unavailable to us would reveal about our world? Google transhumanist and posthuman to get an idea of what I mean. Plantinga uses this argument to refute people who argue that evolution develops rational capacities aimed at discovering truth, and he's right. That doesn't then mean that our reason is flawed, or that evolution is wrong, or that God is necessary. That's my take, anyway.

 

I don't know, granted I got part of what I read about him from Wikipedia, which is hardly a repository for perfect truth, but I got the feeling that he was trying to argue that a belief in god was axiomatic ( logic cannot be trusted without a belief in him ) and this seemed like a step he used in proving this.

 

This is what wiki said:

 

Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-cum-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. On the other hand, if God created man "in his image" by way of an evolutionary process (or any other means), then Plantinga argues our faculties would probably be reliable.

 

Of course like I said, the wiki writer could have completely fucked up his understanding of Plantinga's thoughts, but if it is right...

 

seems like this is an argument that god must exist in order for reason to be trust worthy, which makes sense to me seeing how he is a professor of philosophy of religion and metaphysics. It sounds similar to arguments I heard some of my religion professors make back in my college days.

 

Part of my point is that I think his argument is useless, because while he is right that evolution is not directly aimed at discovering truth, it does lead us there by indirect means. That is, that knowing what is true is more likely to help us survive.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

[chefranden]

Plantinga is pretty dense reading for me, but I think that his main problem is that he wants to create a space for "absolute truth" which always seems to boil down to "absolute morality" sooner or later. Plantinga has a point in that evolution wouldn't produce an "absolute truth" detector/s. But an "absolute truth" detector is not necessary for survival. All that is needed is good enough. For example I just need to know the approximate position of that deer relative to myself in order to chuck my spear at it successfully. I don't need to know the distance to the deer to the last nanometer in order to bring it down and eat.

[Skankboy]

:whs:

 

Absolute truth assumes it has some kind of objective reality...