Page 2 – Where the Conflict Really Lies – Alvin Plantinga
Plantinga then argues, with the traditional Christian view of God, that God creates, conserves, and governs the world, including through special divine action (i.e., miracles). Some enlightenment views of science, like those of Rudolf Bultmann, reject this perspective because of “incompatibility with modern science” based on a certain understanding of Newton’s laws that assume a closed universe (72). Plantinga rejects this reading of Newton’s laws saying, “They don’t purport to tell us how things always go; they tell us, instead, how things go when no agency outside the universe acts in it” (79). Newer models of science, like relativity and quantum mechanics do not in and of themselves exclude special divine action. At the same time, Plantinga argues, “The sensible religious believer is not obliged to trim her sails to the current scientific breeze on this topic, revising her belief on the topic every time science changes its mind” (121).
Second, he argues that there is a superficial conflict between religion and evolutionary psychology and historical biblical criticism. He defines evolutionary psychology as “an attempt to explain important human traits and behaviors in terms of the evolutionary origin of the human species” (131). In particular, Plantinga interacts with views in evolutionary psychology for how religion developed. While arguing that some of these views do conflict with faith, he concludes that describing how religion originated does not “impugn its truth” (140). “For if Christian belief is in fact true, as, naturally enough, the Christian will think, it will be produced in us by cognitive processes that God has designed with the end in view of enabling us to see the truth of ‘the great things of the Gospel’” (152). Plantinga also notes that some views of historical biblical criticism that exclude special divine action also conflict with Christian belief.
Some argue that science, and thus historical biblical criticism, require methodological naturalism. Plantinga concludes that this puts a “constraint on the evidence base for scientific inquiry” (172). At the same time, a Christian with respect for science can acknowledge that science from the perspective of methodological naturalism is good science with respect to its evidence base
Third, he sees concord between faith and fine-tuning arguments and design discourse. Fine-tuning arguments note that various physical constants must be within a narrow range for life, especially intelligent life, to be possible. Plantinga concludes that fine-tuning is more probable if God created than not. After dealing with some critiques of fine-tuning arguments, Plantinga concludes that fine-tuning offers “slight support for theism” (224). Then Plantinga interacts with Michael Behe’s arguments for intelligent design, which center around his concept of “irreducible complexity,” which Behe defines as “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (225). Plantinga agrees with Paul Draper, one of Behe’s many critics, that Behe’s arguments are not airtight, but Plantinga’s critique is sympathetic and also shows the absurdity of some reactions to Behe’s work. Plantinga argues that design arguments “offer little support for specifically Christian belief” (262), and that design functions better as a discourse rather than an argument.
Click the link below to continue reading on Page 3…
 Reading for the Common Good From ERB Editor Christopher Smith "This book will inspire, motivate and challenge anyone who cares a whit about the written word, the world of ideas, the shape of our communities and the life of the church." -Karen Swallow Prior Enter your email below to sign up for our weekly newsletter & download your FREE copy of this ebook! |
Understanding Christian Nationalism [A Reading Guide] |
 Most Anticipated Books of the Fall for Christian Readers!
|
 Hilarious One-Star Customer Reviews of Bibles |
Thanks to Shaun Brown and ERB for this making this review available. Very clear presentation of what must have been a challenging read.
Plantinga’s book is primarily directed to atheists (especially naturalists), but has lessons for apologetics as well. Most religious people respect science and all use its findings. Many scientists are religious, some very much so. Both science and religion, however, have limitations which should be mutually respected.
In my free ebook on comparative mysticism, “the greatest achievement in life,” is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is the center of all religion.”
E=mc², Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Love, Grace, Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.http://www.peacenext.org/profile/RonKrumpos