Theism, Naturalism, and Rationality - Alvin Plantinga
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 янв 2013
- For more on the Religious Freedom Project, visit: berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp
For more on the Berkley Center, visit: berkleycenter.georgetown.edu
For Part 2 of this discussion, visit: bit.ly/1bMWAKc
January 7, 2012 | Standing Seminar: Theism, Naturalism, and Rationality
Presentation: Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. One of the most important living philosophers of religion, he is credited with helping revive Christian philosophy. Acclaimed for his work on metaphysics, the problem of evil, and the epistemology of religious belief, he is the author or editor of many books, including God and Other Minds, The Nature of Necessity, Faith and Rationality, and a major trilogy on "Warrant" which argues, among many other things, that belief in God is "properly basic."
So is it safe to say being a naturalist is irrational at this point ?
Sure if you are convinced by Platinga. Most philosophers aren't though.
@@gerhitchman Any sources for this?
@@TRH982 Sure go to philpapers survey and look at how many philosophers still identify as naturalists. Obviously they haven't been very moved by Plantinga.
I was wondering if the remaining discussion is available anywhere? I was looking forward to Wolferstorff's comment and everyone's counter arguments (not just comments.) Also, I am sure I have never seen such a close proximity of recognizable philosophers all around one single table. It was like watching an all-star game of philosophy!
Hi Timothy, You can find the second part of the discussion here: bit.ly/1bMWAKc Please enjoy the video!
+Berkley Center Thank you so much. That was very kind of you to take the time to find the link!
re: Plantinga: His talks seem to go over even the smartest scholar's heads! Was watching a debate with Hitchens and Hitchens didn't even respond to his arguments (the same posited here, basically.) I wish Plantinga could hear how he sounds to most people. It almost always takes me 2 or 3 listens to grasp what he's REALLY saying. I wonder if others have a hard time following him?
@timandmonica I find it easy to follow his arguments; on the other hand, I also find it easy to spot where others have gone wrong in understanding, where they misunderstood him. From my perspective, the misunderstandings are related to the most basic and straightforward aspects of his arguments. So, I wouldn't call their "brilliance" in question, I would rather wonder if they zoned out or their attention broke of at a certain point during the presentation. If this latter part is the case, I can then see where the problems in understanding come into play.
but what noisy page turning bunch! LOL 😊
min 46 Did anyone listen to the actual argument on that table ???
it got better after min 54
As is frequently the case, theism gets conflated with monotheism or Christianity. “Made in the image of God” is a good example
I mean, on this particular case the theist is a christian monotheist so...
why someone who represents Islam and Judaism were invited
As a Muslim, I find this discussion helpful. Thank you.
I hope God guides Dr. Plantinga to Islam, the religion of Jesus Christ in essence.
Hanzala Jesus is a Jew. What are you talking about?
🤡
One defines the word "bread" by eating it. One defines "theism" by what it does and never by what it is; ie, by words alone.
MyBozhidar is bread an objective universal?
The act of eating is NOTa definition.
I don't need to substantiate logic. Like commented before, anyone trying to doubt or validate logic already assumes logic is valid, so the entire enterprise is circular. Again, even if is the case that such thing is a problem for me, it is no less of a problem for you and for God. Can God validate logic? How exactly such miracle will take place? God have external validation for his mind? What external validation if there's nothing beyond him, by definition?
What is the point of this?
Philosophy
I am at min 41 so far, and the questions are totally disappointing, what a loose of
Plantinga´s time.
"But we're not naturally logical are we?" Agreed. We also can't naturally fly and indeed we build tools to assist us in this task. There several types of things that we can do that are not natural, so your objection that atheists can't do logic because such thing is not natural does not hold.
He's pointing to an inconsistency if logic is "natural" it does not exist if logic does exist then the naturalist is assuming a metaphysical plane of existence they otherwise deny.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 Logical truths are necessary truths. If there’s any logical world where logic is not necessary or does not exist, then, by logical necessity, logical truths are not logically necessary and you have a metaphysical absurdity.
@@lfzadra See Quine
ruclips.net/video/N7XpeYeJF1o/видео.html
How do we learn, gather knowledge about anything real? I suggest we gather knowledge only one way: we use our five senses and then think about what our senses reveal to us.
If this is true, then it matters not whether supernatural world or beings exist or not; since knowledge to be knowledge must derive from previous knowledge and which pertains to or is about only the real world and not unreel.
Our ever changing knowledge cannot be compared nor used learn anything unreal world; aka, supernatural, divine, satanic, angelic, demonic, spiritual.
Believers such as snake huggers dispense with their senses and relying on bible, handle a poisonous snake; get's bitten and dies!
+MyBozhidar you cant just stipulate that we know things only by the five senses and then claim theism doesnt meet it. You need some reason why me must accept that.
In fact take the claim "we gather knowledge only one way: we use our five senses and then think about what our senses reveal to us." unless this is something our senses show us, or you can derive it from premises which are your position is incoherent.
+Matthew Flannagan "You need some reason why me must accept that."
Positing truth or a fact, i dare say, cannot be wrong an act to do. That alone justifies positing the fact that even if god exists, it matter not, because we gather knowledge ONLY by thinking about or of what our five senses discover for us.
According to rev 19:11, god wages war. Do we need a god who wages wars, kills unborn; commits genocide of the canaanites and now of the palestinians; refuses to teach us how to get rid of poverty, corruption, cancer, hatred, misogyny......?
It is irrelevant if other minds exist or not. If you and other theists are just a byproduct of my mind, then you are the irrational product of my mind.
Plantinga's statement about true beliefs is quite ridiculous. One can have phantom pains in a leg that is no longer attached to the body. So it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose one could have phantom pains in a leg that is still attached, (or indeed other appendage). Therefore the example seems to do little for his assertion that it backs up true belief.
If the leg still attached to your body, then your feeling of pains are real, can't be phantom.
The theistic god does not have something outside himself to validate his reason. And indeed, you grant him a functional mind. Plantinga's position is an argument from epistemological ignorance. I'm having some little problems validating knowledge, therefore I must invoke a powerful being to do the job. Any device you may possess to defeat strong skepticism will also serve to defeat Plantinga's position. If you do not have such devices, to invoke God will not help you.
Belief in rational concepts are naturally rational. Belief in irrational concepts are necessarily irrational. If God is an irrational concept then belief in God is irrational. The concept of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is irrational. If God is defined thus then belief in said God is irrational
Yes. And if he expects us to believe in him, even if his existance is out of the bounds of our rationality, he should make it as believing in him as rational.
Why? Because reason is the best way our brains have to find out what is true or not.
blackestjake Ahaha, you're saying this, just as one person whose ever lived. You, we, can't even begin to imagine how life might exist within a universe of infinite space, throughout an infinite time, and with a finite amount of energy. Even you can agree with concepts, such as that some unimaginable being that we can not know lived, or still lives, at some other point, whose actions have altered the dynamic of the universe, or in any way altered the creation of ourselves.
The God you speak about is a different perception than any God that anyone else ever invented, but one that you've clearly taken the liberty of scorching with cynicism -- it fancies me that people have for so long been debating the topic of this word, or words -- and that's really the draw of Religion, isn't it, to be able to write something down so that those within the future may see.
To me, the decadence of our civilization and manners of living is the greatest topic of my interests, not so much conjecture in semantic on the meaning of Gods, because that takes a great deal of world knowledge that I've hardly begun to acquire, but in the sense that our civilization is decadent, I have amassed quantities of supporting evidence and probable solutions.
I, myself, though, interpret God in dynamic ways based on who I happen to be conferring with. One never knows when a particular point of interest can spark a conversation based on that common interest. However, I do not foresee any likely outcome to discussing with anyone about how God doesn't exist. Suppose you were to approach the universe as an intelligent being, then you could look at something and think that it could be better, and therefor cite that example as a source that the universe is not god-like, magical, superintended, or smart in any way, and you could assess it merely as a matter of chance, but I think from the true pragmatists perspective, to understand that there is no alternate dimension where the past and future within time and space can be altered, and that there is only the moment of now, and acknowledge, that something you were looking at has a history that spans for an infinity period of time. So much can be revealed by that outlook.
What really amazes me about God is that people emerged in this world from having spoken no words, to having spoken about gods; there has been so much to talk about and to try to preserve, and in such a large way we attribute this to Religion, although Religio, from Latin, originally meant reverence for Gods. It seems as though Christians, who have a diverse heritage, have adopted the word Religion mostly as a dedication to Christ's life.
I really don't have a problem with the way that you use God; what you say is quite remarkable when you consider that God is essentially an assumption or belief about a serious matter. Often, though atheists perceive somewhat silly ideas about how Science has superseded Religion, from our first attempt to understand the world. I most often see atheists trying to be more offensive than receptive, really, but that may be because my domain is primarily the internet.
Azihayya I'm sorry, I just want a confirmation. You are not talking to me, are you?
You almost get it, but not quite, Jake. It's more like the following:
Beliefs in rational concepts are naturally rational. Beliefs in irrational concepts are necessarily irrational. Belief in God (a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being) is necessarily rational. Therefore, the concept of God is rational.
You're still pre-supposing the definition of God, though- take your own analysis here, that belief in irrational concepts are irrational- you believe that God is a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being- why do you believe this? Based on only a margin of people who have ever laid claim to using the word God, or any of its analogs? That's the least pragmatic of beliefs that you could possibly hold- basically your belief here equates to 'stirring up shit'. A much more rational approach to the situation would be to reserve personal judgement for conversations that take place on an individual basis, taking into account the individuals' who you are talking with beliefs.
I admit that I absolutely do not know the truth about God- there are so many variations of the concept itself, and if we're talking about the one from the Bible, I neither know Hebrew, have read the original Bible, or lived 2,000 years ago- or, really, the concept of Yahweh specifically goes back further; and even while considering Gods in the most literal context that we are capable of there is still room for interpretation.
Personally, I believe that everything that is always is, which completely defies the concept of something coming from nothing, but I'm still capable of interpreting God in other ways, although I am generally compelled to view parts of the Bible, such as Genesis, as poetry. However, I feel that if I could observe history in its entirety that I would have a completely different outlook on God altogether.
"For a God that simply means "being himself""
Like Plantinga said once, your claim is heretical. Personal are not identical to properties or ideas. Such thing would falsify the christian god, that is personal.
Even if it is true that "God is logic" you are still failing to provide any reason for why I should accept that you can trust your faculties because an external being that can't validate his own is granting this to you.
"There would be no if; either or, only it."
The real problem with theists is that they think that blind, unsupported assertions are something a rational being can use to support an argument. Please provide the evidence you have that in the absence of God, logic operators would no longer work.