Hello all,
The time of the champions of atheism is slowly passing away. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Samuel Harris, Laurence Krauss, etc, etc... These names are the popularizers of atheism for the previous 10+ years. A common theme among these individuals is an objection of this sort; I may not know whether Christianity (or another religion) is true, but I do know that it is irrational, or stupid, or silly, or just plain 'wrong-headed' to believe. This was put forth best by Freud and Marx. Freud would equate Christian belief as "wishful thinking" and Marx thought Christianity was a result of the deprivations of Capitalism. Is there any weight in this type of argument? Some see it as a more modest claim, because it does not deal with the de facto (truth) objections regarding Christianity, but it is a de jure objection to Christian belief. My question and the question Alvin Plantinga raises in his book Warranted Christian Belief (2000) is whether this type of objection holds water.
Here are some notes before you start pounding on your keyboard: 1) A majority of my reference material will come from Alvin Plantinga's book Warranted Christian Belief (2000) 2) I would say Alvin Plantinga is the leading epistemologist that is alive today among secular and non-secular epistemologists. I would just ask to have some respect as you critique his thoughts or at least my representation of his thoughts. 3) I am most interested in Christianity, so any remarks regarding other religions I probably won't respond to unless relevant to the discussion
Onto the good stuff. My claim (and the claim of Alvin Plantinga's book) is that there is no de jure objection to Christianity a part from a de facto objection. That is to say that you cannot say Christianity is stupid, or silly, or irrational to believe, without also objecting to the truth of Christianity. No longer can an educated individual say they do not know whether Christianity is true, but they do know it is irrational, without also objecting to the truth of Christianity.
How do we arrive at this conclusion? Well, Alvin Plantinga puts forth a model through which humanity can come to have knowledge regarding Christianity that defeats defeaters (yes I meant that twice) put forth by modern atheism (a defeater-defeater). Take the following example, an individual living under the Atheist/Communist party of China or North Korea that does not have Christian material available to him. If he is a Christian, but has no material to support his conclusion (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or Teleological Argument, etc...) is he rationally obliged to forgo his belief in Christianity because he cannot rebut his opponents view? The model provided by Plantinga supports such a case.
Plantinga calls it the Aquinas/Calvin model (A/C model). Aquinas and Calvin both made reference to a sensus divinitatus in their work or a 'sense of the divine'. This is a sense much like the way in which your nose can tell the difference between food and vomit. How exactly does it function? Imagine you are walking through the woods and come upon a beautiful vista of the Cascade Mountains. The sensus divinitatus would then occasion the belief that God made these mountains. Clarification: this is not an inference from another belief like, the mountains are super beautiful, therefore, God exists. The sensus divinitatus specifically occasions the belief "these mountains were made by God". Why is this significant? In short, this provides a furnishing for the proper basicality of the belief in God. In the school of thought called classical foundationalism there is a set of beliefs considered 'properly basic'. This would include beliefs like 'the external world exists', 'my friend has a mind and is not a robot', 'I ate a pancake for breakfast', etc... Why is this important? Because beliefs concerning the past or the external world are axiomatic. In Plantinga's reformed epistemology he goes to include the belief in God as a properly basic belief.
Skip some details regarding the book...
Alright, so how do we get from the belief in God as properly basic to full-blooded Christian belief? We have the instigation of the Holy Spirit. In Plantinga's book the Holy Spirit provides the knowledge concerning Christian belief (i.e. Jesus is divine, Jesus died for my sins, Jesus is the second member of the Trinity, etc..). How does the Holy Spirit do this? Through faith. According to Plantinga the Holy Spirit provides the faith by which a believer comes to not only have the appropriate knowledge concerning Christianity, but they also (and importantly) obtain the appropriate affections toward God (i.e. God loves me, God cares for my life, God desires to know me, etc...). [Off topic remark: faith has actually always been considered a type of knowledge throughout the ages. It is only recently that it has taken on the poor rhetoric of modern atheism by reference of "blind faith", "leap of faith", etc...]
We now have the material to answer our first question. On Plantinga's model there is no de jure objection a part from a de facto objection regarding Christianity because the Holy Spirit furnishes the believer with the faith (or knowledge) to defeat the defeaters of the objectors. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your questions.
The time of the champions of atheism is slowly passing away. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Samuel Harris, Laurence Krauss, etc, etc... These names are the popularizers of atheism for the previous 10+ years. A common theme among these individuals is an objection of this sort; I may not know whether Christianity (or another religion) is true, but I do know that it is irrational, or stupid, or silly, or just plain 'wrong-headed' to believe. This was put forth best by Freud and Marx. Freud would equate Christian belief as "wishful thinking" and Marx thought Christianity was a result of the deprivations of Capitalism. Is there any weight in this type of argument? Some see it as a more modest claim, because it does not deal with the de facto (truth) objections regarding Christianity, but it is a de jure objection to Christian belief. My question and the question Alvin Plantinga raises in his book Warranted Christian Belief (2000) is whether this type of objection holds water.
Here are some notes before you start pounding on your keyboard: 1) A majority of my reference material will come from Alvin Plantinga's book Warranted Christian Belief (2000) 2) I would say Alvin Plantinga is the leading epistemologist that is alive today among secular and non-secular epistemologists. I would just ask to have some respect as you critique his thoughts or at least my representation of his thoughts. 3) I am most interested in Christianity, so any remarks regarding other religions I probably won't respond to unless relevant to the discussion
Onto the good stuff. My claim (and the claim of Alvin Plantinga's book) is that there is no de jure objection to Christianity a part from a de facto objection. That is to say that you cannot say Christianity is stupid, or silly, or irrational to believe, without also objecting to the truth of Christianity. No longer can an educated individual say they do not know whether Christianity is true, but they do know it is irrational, without also objecting to the truth of Christianity.
How do we arrive at this conclusion? Well, Alvin Plantinga puts forth a model through which humanity can come to have knowledge regarding Christianity that defeats defeaters (yes I meant that twice) put forth by modern atheism (a defeater-defeater). Take the following example, an individual living under the Atheist/Communist party of China or North Korea that does not have Christian material available to him. If he is a Christian, but has no material to support his conclusion (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or Teleological Argument, etc...) is he rationally obliged to forgo his belief in Christianity because he cannot rebut his opponents view? The model provided by Plantinga supports such a case.
Plantinga calls it the Aquinas/Calvin model (A/C model). Aquinas and Calvin both made reference to a sensus divinitatus in their work or a 'sense of the divine'. This is a sense much like the way in which your nose can tell the difference between food and vomit. How exactly does it function? Imagine you are walking through the woods and come upon a beautiful vista of the Cascade Mountains. The sensus divinitatus would then occasion the belief that God made these mountains. Clarification: this is not an inference from another belief like, the mountains are super beautiful, therefore, God exists. The sensus divinitatus specifically occasions the belief "these mountains were made by God". Why is this significant? In short, this provides a furnishing for the proper basicality of the belief in God. In the school of thought called classical foundationalism there is a set of beliefs considered 'properly basic'. This would include beliefs like 'the external world exists', 'my friend has a mind and is not a robot', 'I ate a pancake for breakfast', etc... Why is this important? Because beliefs concerning the past or the external world are axiomatic. In Plantinga's reformed epistemology he goes to include the belief in God as a properly basic belief.
Skip some details regarding the book...
Alright, so how do we get from the belief in God as properly basic to full-blooded Christian belief? We have the instigation of the Holy Spirit. In Plantinga's book the Holy Spirit provides the knowledge concerning Christian belief (i.e. Jesus is divine, Jesus died for my sins, Jesus is the second member of the Trinity, etc..). How does the Holy Spirit do this? Through faith. According to Plantinga the Holy Spirit provides the faith by which a believer comes to not only have the appropriate knowledge concerning Christianity, but they also (and importantly) obtain the appropriate affections toward God (i.e. God loves me, God cares for my life, God desires to know me, etc...). [Off topic remark: faith has actually always been considered a type of knowledge throughout the ages. It is only recently that it has taken on the poor rhetoric of modern atheism by reference of "blind faith", "leap of faith", etc...]
We now have the material to answer our first question. On Plantinga's model there is no de jure objection a part from a de facto objection regarding Christianity because the Holy Spirit furnishes the believer with the faith (or knowledge) to defeat the defeaters of the objectors. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your questions.
Comment