"The total passion for the total height"
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 6 users and 27 guests online.
PollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 84% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 3% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 1% Something else (specify) 9% Total votes: 76
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
GOD--ONCE MORE WITH FEELING Submitted by seddon on Sun, 2007-09-23 02:17.
Recently I posted GOD IS BACK. FOR GOD'S SAKE, in which I related a recent challenge to Objectivism by two articles on natural theology from the latest issue of JARS. (Spring 2007) Linz then promptly (and no doubt unintentionally) highjacked the topic and replaced it with one on Mother Teresa's letters. So let me try this one more time. We claim to be advocates of reason to the point that we will follow reason wherever she leads, even if she leads to God. Well, Parrish comes after us and accuses us of falling down when it comes to the central point of Objectivism, viz., reason. Here is what he says: My conclusion will be that Objectivists have not only failed to ke ep up with the work of contemporary philosophers of religion, but that their work is marred by logical fallacies, especially begging the question. . . . Objectivists have failed to support the atheism Rand so vigorously espoused. Since Objectivists claim theirs is a philosophy of reason, the failure to support such a central tenet undermines the whole project of their philosophy. (171) One of the contemporary philosophers Parrish has in mind is Plantinga. He has little doubt that we can demolish straw men, but he doubts we can handle a real man, like Plantinga. How real is Plantinga? He is the 500 lb. elephant they talk about. Here is what Richard Gale, who’s on our side, has to say about Plantinga. Plantinga’s version of the FWD [free will defense] is a thing of beauty that, it is safe to day, will serve as one of the cornerstones in theism’s response to evil not just for many years to come but for many centuries. (ON THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF GOD, p. 113.) None of the three Objectivists thinkers mentioned by Parrish, viz., Rand, Peikoff and Thomas, has ever mention Plantinga. (And he started all the fuss back in 1967—even before the break.) If Plantinga has accepted the burden of proof, and has provided such a proof, then the ball is in our court. Gale confronts Plantinga is his book and it take him all of 56 pages (113-169) to answer his argument. That’s a start!
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Linz,
BUT WHAT IS THE PROOF?!
I finally got THE ANALYTIC THEIST" AN ALVIN PLANTINGA READER. In it Plantinga does not provide a proof that God exists. In fact, he argues against the traditional proofs himself. What he does try to do is to show that theism is a more rational alternative than naturalism. There are a host of things that we all believe with compelling proof, why should it be any different with theism, he claims.
Ch 4 of the book addresses this issue head on. It is entitled "Is Naturalism Rational?" and finds it wanting based, not on faith, but on reasons he derives from atheistic scientists like Darwin himself. At the end of the day he concludes that naturalism flourishes best "in the garden of supernaturalistic metaphysics." Conjoining naturalism with a naturalism metaphysics leads to "skepticism or to violaitons of canons of rationality." (96) Since Objectivism rejects both skepticism and irrationality, we should be theists.
Fred
smoovegeek
Good point. The site is, as you no doubt noticed, incomplete. So I've sent for his book and will give an undate as soon as I read it. You are obviously not as impressed as Gale was--
Anyway, more later.
BTW, what do you think is the strongest atheological argument offered by either Rand, Peikoff et al?
Fred
Defense = proof?
Maybe I didn't navigate to the right place on the linked site, but it sounds as if I did.
Linz,
No, I was making a slightly different point. Let us say that the burden is on the person who asserts the positive. That would be the theist. But if the theist provides a proof then isn't the ball in our court?
I found the proof for you. Go to the following site. http://books.google.com/books?id=4H_PIyi3VMUC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=planti...
&source=web&ots=2scGDC3E0k&sig=EuglGqOIPQgu51vkhwOMZ3Z2sS0#PPA22,M1
The proof begins on p. 22 of the Alvin Plantinga Reader.
Fred
Ahhhh. I just notice that the site I sent you to only reprints pp. 22-25. Sorry.
But maybe that will give you some idea of how Plantinga argues and you can determine whether he is worth the trouble.
Fred
"If Plantinga has accepted the burden of proof, and has provided such a proof, then the ball is in our court." So given what you wrote, isn't the ball in our court now?
BUT WHAT IS THE PROOF?!
Are you seriously asking me to accept as a hypothesis that it stacks up?!
deleted
deleted
Linz,
Maybe one should take it as a hypothetical--if Objectivists can't beat the 500 pound theist and wind up taking their atheism on fatih, then they would be contradicting their dedication to reason as our only tool of knowledge.
AS for the "burden of proof." I already covered that. Let me quote me.
"If Plantinga has accepted the burden of proof, and has provided such a proof, then the ball is in our court." So given what you wrote, isn't the ball in our court now?
Of course, one could make a move like Peikoff after the breakup with Kelley. He said something like, "Life is toooo short for me to revisit this controversy. I've got a desk full of interesting work etc." But the philosophers and philosopher types among the Soloists don't have that luxury. Or do they?
If one has read Anselm, Aquinas and Descartes (to name but 3 and can show where their arguments fail--that's quite a bit. But then, isn't the price of rationality eternal vigilance. We're like weed wackers--each time a new and stronger weed appears, we've got to go to work. No rest for the weary atheist.
Fred
This is 101 stuff ...
I read the referent of "central tenet" to be "philosophy of reason" and not "atheism." He seems to be claiming that we are taking atheism on FAITH, and that seems to contradict he notion that Objectivis is a philosophy of reason.
What do you think?
We're not taking anything on faith, just putting the burden of proof where it belongs: on those who say there's a god to explain what they mean and prove it. This is elementary.
Is this the sort of crap they're covering in JARS now?
It should be called JOPS—Journal of Pomowanking Studies.
The problem
The problem is that Objectivists, IMO, spend too much time attacking religions rather than promoting Objectivism. This site is classic example. Some of the personal attacks on Nick Otani, who at least attempts to stimulate debate on philosophical and religious issues, have been disgusting.
Linz,
I had to read that twice myself and I not sure I've got it right. Parrish writes,
"Objectivists have failed to support the atheism Rand so vigorously espoused. Since Objectivists claim theirs is a philosophy of reason, the failure to support such a central tenet undermines the whole project of their philosophy. (171)"
I read the referent of "central tenet" to be "philosophy of reason" and not "atheism." He seems to be claiming that we are taking atheism on FAITH, and that seems to contradict he notion that Objectivis is a philosophy of reason.
What do you think?
As for the concise summary, Gale's is the shortest summary I think I've seen and that runs to many pages of his book, as I cited.
Here is his website. Some of it is actually funny.
Fred
Fred
Maybe you could furnish a concise summary of Platinga's argument?
And since when is atheism a "central tenet" of Objectivism?