Quote of the Day by Alvin Plantinga
Yep, this one comes from fundamentalist Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who wrote:
Because time after time in order to defend what they believe, Christians must continually retreat to what is possible rather than what is probable. I hope to gather a bunch of these types of quotes in the weeks/months ahead.
So, let's assume this scenario by Plantinga, that there are natural processes that produce religious belief such that neurologists have an explanation in terms of natural processes of religious belief. Okay so far? That is, science can explain the brain processes that produce religious faith. Actually, I think neurology has already gone a long way to explaining religious/paranormal beliefs, but we'll leave that aside.
So here comes fundamentalist Christian philosopher Plantinga poised to attack, that even if this should prove to be the case his religious faith could possibly still be true. What should we say to this? We say what is obvious, yes, it is still possible, Alvin. But what has he gained? Nothing at all. For what we want to know is what would be probable given an explanation of religious faith in brain processes, not what is possible. If all we had to be concerned about was what is possible then maybe the Loch Ness Monster exists but is smart enough to escape being detected by us too. Get the point?
Furthermore, if Plantinga can say this in defense of his fundamentalist Christian faith then a Mormon or a Muslim could say the exact same things he did in defense of their faith. And hence all religious faiths could still be true despite neurological science. And where does that get us? Nowhere as in NO WHERE.
My claim is that at crucial places in defense of religious faith, believers must punt over and over to what is possible rather than what is probable. My claim is that the more believers must do this to defend what they believe, then the less likely their faith is true.
"To show that there are natural processes that produce religious belief does nothing, so far, to discredit it; perhaps God designed us in such a way that it is by virtue of those processes that we come to have knowledge of him. Suppose it could be demonstrated that a certain kind of complex neural stimulation could produce theistic belief. This would have no tendency to discredit religious belief....Clearly, it is possible both that there is an explanation in terms of natural processes of religious belief, and that these beliefs have a perfectly respectable epistemic status." Warranted Christian BeliefWhy is this the quote of the day?(p. 145).
Because time after time in order to defend what they believe, Christians must continually retreat to what is possible rather than what is probable. I hope to gather a bunch of these types of quotes in the weeks/months ahead.
So, let's assume this scenario by Plantinga, that there are natural processes that produce religious belief such that neurologists have an explanation in terms of natural processes of religious belief. Okay so far? That is, science can explain the brain processes that produce religious faith. Actually, I think neurology has already gone a long way to explaining religious/paranormal beliefs, but we'll leave that aside.
So here comes fundamentalist Christian philosopher Plantinga poised to attack, that even if this should prove to be the case his religious faith could possibly still be true. What should we say to this? We say what is obvious, yes, it is still possible, Alvin. But what has he gained? Nothing at all. For what we want to know is what would be probable given an explanation of religious faith in brain processes, not what is possible. If all we had to be concerned about was what is possible then maybe the Loch Ness Monster exists but is smart enough to escape being detected by us too. Get the point?
Furthermore, if Plantinga can say this in defense of his fundamentalist Christian faith then a Mormon or a Muslim could say the exact same things he did in defense of their faith. And hence all religious faiths could still be true despite neurological science. And where does that get us? Nowhere as in NO WHERE.
My claim is that at crucial places in defense of religious faith, believers must punt over and over to what is possible rather than what is probable. My claim is that the more believers must do this to defend what they believe, then the less likely their faith is true.