Plantinga & Draper on Noetic Structures & the Reliability of Belief-Forming Mechanisms

In my Philosophy of Religion class I'm wrapping up Alvin Plantinga's "Religious Belief Without Evidence," in Pojman's Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Plantinga's essay is followed by atheist Michael Martin's "A Critique of Plantinga's Religious Epistemology." Here Martin gives the rather famous "Great Pumpkin objection' in the form of the "voodoo objection."

A little over a year ago I wrote Dr. Plantinga some questions from Martin's essay, to which he kindly responded. I read Plantinga's letter to me to my class this morning.

After the class one student told me she read Paul Draper's essay in Pojman: "Evolution and the Problem of Evil." She asked how Plantinga might respond to that. I told her about the recent infidels.org debate/dialogue between Draper and Plantinga found here.

Here's one of Plantinga's points to Draper, the point which I have been explaining in my class.

"Isn't there a problem, here, for the naturalist? At any rate for the naturalist who thinks that we and our cognitive capacities have arrived upon the scene after some billions of years of evolution (by way of natural selection and other blind processes working on some such source of genetic variation as random genetic mutation)? The problem begins in the recognition, from this point of view, that the ultimate purpose or function of our cognitive faculties, if they have one, is not to produce true beliefs, but to promote reproductive fitness.[3] What our minds are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of adaptive behavior. That our species has survived and evolved at most guarantees that our behavior is adaptive; it does not guarantee or even suggest that our belief-producing processes are reliable, or that our beliefs are for the most part true. That is because our behavior could be adaptive, but our beliefs mainly false."

"Darwin himself apparently worried about this question: "With me," says Darwin,
the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?[4]"

AND... here's from Plantinga's review of Dawkins's God Delusion. Plantinga discusses theistic and atheistic noetic structures on the reliability of human cognitive faculties.

"Toward the end of the book, Dawkins endorses a certain limited skepticism. Since we have been cobbled together by (unguided) evolution, it is unlikely, he thinks, that our view of the world is overall accurate; natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. But Dawkins fails to plumb the real depths of the skeptical implications of the view that we have come to be by way of unguided evolution. We can see this as follows. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a na�ve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.

Plantinga's Modal Argument on Foreknowledge & Free Will

This is for my Philosophy of Religion class. Sorry about that fact that I could not figure out how to get both modal logic symbols and symbolic logic symbols on this post.

*****

PLANTINGA’S [1]MODAL ARGUMENT ON FOREKNOWLEDGE AND FREE WILL

(See: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [IEP], "Foreknowledge and Free Will")

Consider these two statements:

- A) God knows that Paul will eat an orange.
- B) Paul will eat an orange for lunch tomorrow.

Each of these propositions, by itself, could be true and could be false.

But if A is true then B cannot be false. For if A is true (i.e. if it is true that God knows that Paul will eat an orange for lunch tomorrow) then B is also true.

Put another way: the truth of A guarantees the truth of B. This is to say that:

(1) It is impossible (for A to be true and for B to be false).

The compound sentence, A and not-B , is impossible (i.e. is necessarily false).

It reads: It is not possible that: God knows that Paul will eat an orange tomorrow and that Paul will not eat an orange tomorrow.

So, that entire statement is: TRUE.

"Now it is a curious fact about most natural languages – English, French, Hebrew, etc. – that when we use modal terms in ordinary speech, we often do so in logically misleading ways. Just see how natural it is to try to formulate the preceding point this way" (IEP):

That is, because (1) is true, it seems that (2) is also true. And (2) is:

(2) If A is true, then it is impossible for B to be false.

It reads: If [God knows that Paul will eat an orange tomorrow], then it is not possible that [Paul not eat an orange tomorrow].

Statement (2) is: FALSE

NOW NOTE: the proposition expressed by (1) is not equivalent to the propositions expressed by (2).

So (1) is true. But (2) is false and commits the modal fallacy.

The fallacy occurs in its assigning the modality of impossibility (necessity), not to the relationship between the truth of A and falsity of B as is done in (1), but to the falsity of B alone.

AGAIN (1) states: It is not possible that [God knows that Paul will eat an orange for lunch tomorrow and Paul choose to not eat an orange for lunch tomorrow]. THAT’S TRUE.

BUT (2) DOES NOT FOLLOW LOGICALLY: If [God knows that Paul will eat an orange for lunch tomorrow] then it is not possible [that Paul can choose to not eat an orange for lunch tomorrow].

If (2) was true, then it would be NECESSARY that Paul chooses to eat an orange tomorrow.

But the statement “Paul will eat an orange tomorrow” is a contingent, not a necessary, statement. Therefore (2) is false, and not logically equivalent to (1).

[1] In formal logic, a modal logic is any system of formal logic that attempts to deal with modalities. Traditionally, there are three 'modes' or 'moods' or 'modalities' of the copula to be, namely, possibility, probability, and necessity.

False Teachings of the (Declining) Church of Oprah

(Sterling State Park)

Oprah Winfrey is a false prophet who has referred to herself as a “Christian” but who embraces a mix of mystical teachings that are unrelated and antithetical to actual Chrsitianity. This is seen in her love affair with the ideas of a man who calls himself “Eckhart Tolle.”

Tolle wrote a book that became a big seller called “A New Earth.” Last year I read this scandalous and sophomoric book because, apparently, many were buying it. Were people actually reading it? That I don’t know, since I have learned that people don’t necessarily read the books they purchase. For example, when Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind was big seller it was called “the book everyone has bought but no one has read.” I actually read Bloom’s book over a series of days – it’s a very good, very deep and insightful read. As for Tolle’s book, I read it one night – it’s shallow reading. And, as I said, it’s scandalous, spiritually speaking. Tolle’s citations of Jesus are, honestly, laughable. Yet I wasn’t laughing at the thought that some would read his book and think he was on to something.

I am suspicious of anyone who changes his first name from “Ulrich” to “Eckhart” and then writes about being truthful and authentic. This is because, in my doctoral studies, I did an independent study with medieval scholar Richard Kieckhefer (Northwestern U.) on the German Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. Meister Eckhart is, historically and even spiritually, interesting. But he’s questionable when his idea of mystical experience approaches what sounds like the possibility of a metaphysical union with God.

Does “Eckhart” Tolle understand Meister Eckhart? I can’t tell. But he’s definitely on the metaphysical union side of things, except it’s far from clear that the m-union has anything to do with God. It’s more like the old “surprise – you can be one with the Universe” kind of thing. At any rate “Eckhart” Tolle is a universe away from Christianity.

When Oprah promoted Tolle’s book I thought, “She’s even more dangerous and off-base then I thought she was!” Now, in a new book called “Oprah, Miracles, and the New Earth: A Critique,” Chicago theologian Erwin Lutzer takes on the “Church of Oprah.” Lutzer says: “If you understand Christianity, you understand that the kind of new spirituality that is being propagated by Oprah is incompatible. It’s a form of occultism that is being packaged for American audiences.”

A recent Chicago Tribune article on Lutzer’s book states: “Since March 2008, more than 2 million people from 139 countries have tuned into Winfrey’s new spirituality “webinars” such as “A Course in Miracles” and “A New Earth.” Students learn about the transformation of consciousness, a spiritual awakening that requires transcending our egos—a prerequisite for personal happiness and world peace. Lutzer said many who are taking these courses are searching for something that will bring them closer to God. But Oprah, who describes herself as a “freethinking” Christian, is not leading them into a deeper walk with God, he said. She is leading them astray.”

I agree. Oprah is a false prophet.

And, according to others, the Church of Oprah is now in decline.

Michael Brown on the Real Jesus

Dr. Michael Brown is a Jew who has come to believe that Jesus is the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. Brown is arguably the greatest defender of Jesus the Messiah today. He did his Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He’s one of the scholars interviewed in Lee Strobel’s excellent The Case for the Real Jesus. Brown makes a clear and compelling case for Jesus being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophetic Messianic hopes. I loved what Brown said in his concluding remarks to Strobel.

“Yeshua is the right continuation of my Jewish roots. He’s the Messiah of Israel and the savior of the world. He’s the one to whom I owe my life, and through him I’ve come to know God.

He is the one who provided for me complete forgiveness of sins, who loved me when I was a miserable, ungrateful, rebellious, proud wretch. He put a new heart and a new spirit within me; he has turned my life around and given it meaning. He’s the fullness of God in bodily form. He’s the very expression and image of the Father – in seeing him, I see and know God.

And he’s the only hope of the world. Outside of him, all we see is darkness. He’s the hope of Israel. Israel will run out of options and finally in the end recognize that the one it thought was the source of all its pain and suffering through the years actually is its only hope.

He’s the beginning and the end, the all in all. I cannot imagine existing outside of him. I can’t imagine purpose in life outside of him. So really he is the ultimate expression of God to the human race. That’s why I’m spending my life talking to Jewish people – as compassionately and accurately as I can – about the reality of Jesus the Messiah.

I just can’t withhold God’s very best from those he dearly loves.” (225)

I find these to be good words, especially today, given the global fears that surround us. Political solutions fail. Yeshua is the only hope for the world.

The End of America

Yesterday's London Times has an article titled "National Intelligence Council report: sun setting on the American century." The article begins: "The next two decades will see a world living with the daily threat of nuclear war, environmental catastrophe and the decline of America as the dominant global power, according to a frighteningly bleak assessment by the US intelligence community.
“The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons,” said the report by the National Intelligence Council, a body of analysts from across the US intelligence community."

So, here's our [possible] future:

- daily threat of nuclear war

- environmental catastrophes

- decline of America as the dominant global power

- increased conflict over resources such as food and water

- terrorist groups have easier access to nuclear weapons

And...

- global warming will aggravate the scarcity of food, water, and energy resources

- climate change will force 200 million people to migrate

- the wealth - poverty gap will widen

- there will be a global economic balancing

- organized crime will increase, maybe even take over entire countries in Europe

The bleak article concludes with one sentence: "On a positive note it added that an alternative to oil might be in place by 2025." Well that makes me feel better!

To all this I say... why not? Anyone with even a slight understanding of history knows all of this is possible. And, when I think of my children and potential grandchildren, it's sad. As a Christian theist this kind of report only strengthens my conviction that our real hope lies in the kingdom of heaven coming to earth. Most of these depressing possibilities concern human choices and what they lead to. The Jesus-message of the Kingdom says this: change human hearts and socio-cultural transformation will inexorably follow.

Logic and Rhubarb Pie

We're currently studying informal fallacies in my Intro to Logic class. On the coming exam students will have to identify whether an argument commits any one of a number of informal fallacies or commits no fallacy.

In Hurley's Intro to Logic he gives, as an example of "no fallacy," the following argument.

1. Rhubarb pie is a dessert.

2. Therefore, whoever eats rhubarb pie eats a dessert.

In this argument no informal fallacy is committed. Also, it's a valid deductive argument, which is to say: if the premise is true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. So, formally, it's a valid deductive argument. But is it a sound argument? Only if P1 is true.

We had quite a debate tonight over this thing! One student even left the classroom for a few minutes and went to a computer to print out the lexical definition of "dessert."

If you're in my class I now appeal to you:

The argument commits no informal fallacy.

The argument is valid deductive.

We don't know if it is "sound" or not - that depends on P1 being true. In other words we have to know that P1 is true. It seems debatable, and I think that's where the debate was taking place tonight. As for me, I think P1 is true.

Now imagine this. You're sitting down to a Thanksgiving meal next week at your grandmother's house. She says "Let's start with an appetizer!" She then proceeds to bring out a rhubarb pie. You say to her, "But grandmother, that's a dessert, not an appetizer, because the lexical definition of "dessert" means "something served at the end of a meal."" (Privately, you also wonder about her mental competency.) She says "Oh yes, I am so sorry." It's only because you recognize rhubarb pie as a dessert that you're able to express your confusion about this. But then someone says, "Why don't we eat the rhubarb pie first?" And, getting very radical, you all do just that. You begin the meal with "dessert" and violate it's lexical definition.

Or, you go to a restaurant and on the list of entrees there appears, right below prime rib, "rhubarb pie." Hasn't something gone quite wrong here precisely because a dessert is mislocated?

Therefore, has not my point been made? :)

American Christians Are Responsible For the Unhappiness of American Atheists?

Paul Bloom's thesis is that American atheists are less happy than American religious people because the latter exclude the former from community. It's community that makes us happy, not religion. Bloom argues that, e.g., Danes and Swedes are happy even though they are atheists precisely because they call themselves "Christians," "they get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don't believe in God... Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved."

I find Bloom a bit unclear about this, since he's reviewing Phil Zuckerman's new book Society Without God. "Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don't go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don't believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they're nice to one another."

OK - Danes and Swedes: 1) don't go to church: and 2) get married in church, have their babies baptized in church, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community." Since, biblically, "religious community" = "church" (and does not equal "a building"), it sounds like Danes and Swedes aren't part of the church and are part of the church. I just need more help from Bloom here, since he's arguing that Danes and Swedes are non-religious and happy but are attached to a religious community.

Does religion make a person happy and non-religion make an atheist not happy? Who cares? I'm reminded of something I read from C.S. Lewis years ago (in I believe, God In the Dock). Lewis was asked if he converted from atheism to Christianity because it made him happy. Lewis responded that if his goal was happiness he would have popped open a bottle of wine instead of converting to Christianity. He became a Christian because he thought it was the truth. Me too. Believing that one is on to the truth could produce inner joy if that truth gave one meaning in life.

Roman Catholic Bishops to Oppose Obama on Abortion

Today's cnn.com has an article re. Roman Catholic bishops who will confront Barack Obama on the abortion issue. The article states:

"Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is preparing a statement during the bishops' fall meeting that will press Obama on abortion.

The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church.""

Violent "Reconversion" of Christians in India to Hinduism

Here's a christianitytoday.com article on violent Hindu groups in India who are "reconverting" Christians back to Hinduism. I'm especially interested in this since we have friends now in India training Christian leaders.

Billy Graham on Praying for Political Leaders

Tired of reading Christians who demonize our political leaders? If so, then consider some actual wisdom from Billy Graham. It’s his 90th birthday, and he is interviewed at christianitytoday.com.

Billy is asked:

I understand that you are an avid TV news and talk show watcher. Were you following the presidential campaign? Any endorsements?

Graham responds: “I’ve always tried to keep up with what’s happening in the world, and I still do—including politics. But no, I’m not making any endorsements, and I’m staying out of partisan politics. I’m grateful for our system of government, and I strongly urge people to vote—but I don’t endorse any candidate.

I also strongly urge people to pray for our new leaders, whoever they are, because they will be facing enormous problems, and they’ll need great wisdom and patience from God to deal with them. I pray also that they’ll be able to work across party lines on these problems, and avoid the partisan wrangling that we’ve seen in recent years.”

Now there’s a biblical idea. It’s 1 Timothy 2:1-7 -”1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” If you or I have a problem with some elected leader God has allowed us to see it so we can pray for them. Surely God loves them. Jesus told us we’re even to love our enemies. Personally, I don’t view any current elected leader as my enemy precisely because I am free to live out the Gospel and preach it. What if that changes? I don’t see that stopping me either. Don’t panic or spread panic. Instead, pray.