The book review is not able to quote a single solid argument employed by the so-called philosopher.  And yet the underlying tone of the article is positive and flattering.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“You can’t logically prove the non-existence of God, therefore I’m not irrational to claim he exists” strikes me as the strategy of “retreat to the possible”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

So I see it’s the atheists who are irrational now.  Nice twist!  So any belief that cannot be disproven is not only rational, but to claim it’s not is irrational?  This sort of mind-numbing sophistry only shows Dawkins, Harris et al. are hitting the mark and making it hurt.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I think there is such a thing as a sensus divinitatis, and in some people it doesn’t work properly.”

Well, there you go, I’m created broken.  Nice job God!

Since Plantinga is all sciencey I look forward to the evidence he presents for the so called sensus divinitatis.  Maybe with all the data and parameters he provides we can illuminate just how broken we are and elaborate on our various degrees of brokenness.  Dawkins must be the most broken of all!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Plantinga is a well known christian apologist.  He’s been calling himself a philosopher and defending theism his entire life.  His brother is president of a seminary school.  This guy is more steeped in religious nonsense than philosophy. 

If Plantinga’s quotes in this article are a fair summary of his own work, there is nothing new involved. 

It’s a foundationalist epistemological argument that ulimately rests on an unproven a priori belief.  In simple terms, he seems to be saying belief in the existence of god is rational because it cannot be disproved.  An absence of affirmative proof that something does not exist does not seem to me to include any reliable process.  It’s an absence of a process.  It’s not a reason to believe, it’s just no reason to disbelieve. 

The exact same argument can be made about anything where there is no proof of non-existence.  By this “rationality” there is just as much “reason” to believe in unicorns, the tooth fairy, and an invisible dragon floating in my garage.  It is a retreat to the possible, so far, the last bastion of the theist.

That Plantinga can characterize this kind of reasoning as rational is more of a semantical argument than a philosophical one.  It’s an effectively an exception rather than a rule.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I think there is such a thing as a sensus divinitatis, and in some people it doesn’t work properly,”

Lets make a very little modification:

“I think there is such a thing as Elvis Presley fandom, and in some people it doesn’t work properly”

Even if there were a universal “sensus divinitatis”, it would only say something about human psychology and culture. Nothing at all about the reality of this so-called “god”, who is nothing but a fictional character until proven otherwise.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Had he not transferred to Calvin College, the Christian “Reformed liberal arts college in Grand Rapids, Mich., where his father taught psychology, Mr. Plantinga wrote in a 1993 essay, he doubted that he “would have remained a Christian at all; certainly Christianity or theism would not have been the focal point of my adult intellectual life.””

He was a teacher, and he wrote this.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It seems to me that responses 1, 2, 3 & 5 show the responders missed the point of the article.  Response #4 doesn’t really add anything to the discussion at all.  Response 6 is - well?  response 6! - merely inflamatory and not worth reading really.  Response 7 is an aside.

Please provide a good critique on to the point the article says Mr. Plantinga was making.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

I read the article carefully and could not discern a point. If you could discern it, pray tell what it is. The best I can figure is that Plantinga believes that one cannot deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

Nutty really because I can imagine a great many things which no one can prove or disprove. Do they all merit serious consideration.

SHUT UP, sorry, the invisible pink dragon on my left shoulder is a bit talkative (in a silent sort of way), keeps interrupting and all that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What piffle.

The proper response to such piffle is to ask the piffler if they’re willing to accept other people playing by the same rules.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave rider

I think you are right my post number 4 failed.

I was trying to point out the disconnect between Plantinga’s supposed scientific credibility and his “sensus divinitatis”  thingy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider,
I get what he argues, and addressed the argument directly.  You’re doing exactly what you always seem to do in these posts—side with the theist perspective, claim nobody else understands the point, and add nothing to the discussion.  Go back to your fish tacos, where you at least have some experience to work from.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Read Human Destiny by the scientist Lecomte Du Nouy before you think you are qualified to deny that the universe has evolved with a purpose. You all sound pedestrian, and quite silly. Let me paraphrase a small taste of what you will find in this book: Life was nearly immortal when only asexual life forms existed, and procreation amounted to the splitting up of these life forms. Only when opposite genders entered the picture did death become the destiny of life.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What was that?  “Nearly immortal”?  I suppose you could then suggest that Du Nouy “nearly” had an argument for immortality resting on that slender reed.  It’s a far cry from design, but, then again, it doesn’t take much to provoke your “signs and wonders” erruptions, does it?  What shall we make of amphibians, fish and flowers changing sex?  By your lights it would seem blasphemous (at least a little insulting) not to refer to them as “messiah”. 

Messiah Orchid please lead us to the promissed land.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Alvin Plantinga is a very intelligent person and a sophisticated philosopher. If you want to challenge your support of atheism and naturalism with the best arguments out there, I suggest that it would do you good to well familiarize yourself with his work.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Silver, if that is typical of the arguments then I think my atheism is safe.  Because one is intelligent does not mean they have compelling ideas.  Nevertheless, I understand where you are coming from.  I spent a good portion of my life using these types of sophomoric arguments to support my faith.

Fortunately or not, depending on your point-of-view, I have a questioning disposition.  I’ve always questioned what I believe and why.  The whats I had covered and I was satisfied, however, the whys always left me with a sense of dissonance.  It wasn’t until many years later it dawned on me the whys came first and the whats filled in the uncomfortable spaces.  I believed simply because I wanted it to be true which is the real definition of faith.  If you’re predisposed to faith then rational arguments are secondary to belief.  That is why even intelligent minds can be corrupted by it. 

Now the dissonance has left me.  The material world exists.  The supernatural world is a wish.  It may exist, but why spend such effort justifying something that cannot be justified.  Just know your faith IS irrational and be happy enough you have comfort in something.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick,

I am an atheist, and I wasn’t making an argument.

It’s interesting that you should write that you know that the material world exists. Plantinga’s ‘reformed epistemology’ hinges on just such ‘knowledge’.

SB out.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Silver,

Apologies for my assumption.  I’ve been lead to so many ‘intelligent’ apologist philosopher’s arguments like Craig, Swinburne, Lewis..etc. that I get a little jumpy.  I assume his argument is much more sophisticated than the OP because its points and Plantinga’s comments are sad.  Perhaps one day if I get my stomach back for philosophy of any kind I’ll pick it up.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If an argument were given to prove the existence of God and it were rational and sound would anyone listen or contemplate it?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Maybe not an argument because that could involve circular logic or purposefully hitting a philosophical wall but what would be considered would be simple evidence, or evidence of his influence (as Victor Strenger shows is non-existent) would have to be considered. Once that is offered rather than a non-explanation for cosmological gaps it will be considered.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Vince, a philosophical or theoretical argument won’t work.  Only solid, unequivocal evidence will, not just for atheists but for all believers of every faith.  Considering the number of religions, and the fact that they can’t ALL be right, finding out the truth of the matter will need unshakable evidence.

You see, for me, in my pursuit of religious ‘truth,’ I have to figure out three things:

First, I need to determine if there really is a god, and this is no simple task.

Second, I need to determine WHICH god is there, once I’ve established that one actually exists.  With thousands of gods to choose from, it’s rather important to verify the correct one.

Third, once I’ve proven a god exists AND I’ve been able to identify the correct one, I now need to figure out which religion accurately represents the true god’s wishes on Earth, i.e. if it is the biblical God, which of the 3,000 christian denominations is correctly interpreting His will…

Philosophical arguments such as Platinga’s don’t really answer any of these questions.  They are essentially just convoluted word games intending to justify their faith without a single piece of evidence backing them up.  Every religion has its intelligent supporters willing to explore the theoretical existence of his/her god, but none that can actually demonstrate, conclusively, the actual existence of said god.

I’m not saying they are wrong, mind you, just explaining what is needed to convince the world of the ‘truth,’ whatever it may be.  Until I personally know for sure, I will remain an agnostic.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

When you understand why you don’t believe in other people’s gods, you will understand why I don’t believe in yours.

—Einstein

You don't have permission to flag this entry.