Posted: Jul 06, 2010 5:23 pm
So much for not posting this week. Briefly then . . .
I think Katja and Archibald are correct. If we say:
A. If God exists, it is not irrational to believe that God exists since belief in the existence of God would be properly basic.
Then we would also have to say:
B. If the Great Pumpkin exists, it is not irrational to believe in the existence of the Great Pumpkin since belief in the Great Pumpkin would be properly basic.
Plantinga does try to offer a defense in the form of “Yes, it would be true if the Great Pumpkin existed, but the Great Pumpkin doesn’t exist, so . . . "
In response to this (as has been pointed out by some philosophers) the Pumpkinite (believer in the existence of the Great Pumpkin) could just as easily say, “Yes, it would be true if God exists, but God doesn’t exist, so . . . “
I’m not sure that I ever said that this wouldn’t be true, but if I did say that, I shouldn’t have because at this point, I really haven’t read anything by Plantinga that shows why both statements (A-B) above wouldn’t be true. I’ve done a little snooping around on the Internet about this, and there seems to be at least some talk that Plantinga has in fact changed his position on this in recent years, agreeing that yes, in fact, if A is true, then B is also true. I don’t know if it is true that Plantinga has changed his position, but if so, I guess it would be much like Kant writing, near the end of his life something that implied strongly that he was an atheist and not a theist.
As for Katja’s post—yes, if a person does not have a belief and/or does not see any reason to believe in the existence of God, then I still think the sane, rational thing to do is to behave as if God does not exist. However, Plantinga does make an interesting point about this. He writes something along the lines that if a person believes in the existence of God (even if he or she doesn’t know why he or she believes), would it then be rational for that person to try and force himself to stop believing?
I don’t think that we necessarily choose our beliefs. For example, if I was ordered to stop believing that I am more than a brain in a vat, I don’t think I could comply with such an order. By the same token, a person who has a strong belief in the existence of God can certainly think about his or her beliefs. However, I don’t think it would be irrational for that person to go on believing without first being presented with what Plantinga refers to as “a Defeater” for his or her belief. Even Plantinga agrees that if a person is presented with “a Defeater” for his belief and that person is not able to arrive at a solution for such a defeater, then his belief could no longer be considered “properly basic.” At this point, then, I think Plantinga would concede that the person’s belief in the existence of God is irrational. However, many Christians don’t care if their faith is irrational. In fact, they pride themselves on it, with the old rhyme:
If faith and reason clash. Reason must go crash!
Anyway, perhaps all of this discussion has been for naught. After combing the loose straws out of my brain, I have come to the enlightened conclusion that the real issue that should be discussed here is the ability to “bend a fucking spoon.” I recall, several years ago, when my Great Great Uncle Dick, who was a retired superior court judge, was nearing the end of his life. He used to sit outside on the porch in his rocker, grumbling angrily about everything from A-Z and saying over and over again, “Goddammit, I know!. He might have also said something about “wibbling,” but that’s hard to say. Some of the cousins are pretty sure that what he was really talking about was a word that rhymed with wibbling and sounded a lot like jiggling. Good old Uncle Dick. He was as tough as nails. He was. His whole life, he boasted of having nothing to lose, but in the end, it was his life and his failing cognition that he was the most bitter about having to give up. In fact, so determined was he to hang on to his life that he broke down and cried like a little girl just before his own funeral. During the funeral, the guests were horrified to hear Uncle Dick knocking on the lid of his coffin. The director of the funeral home moved quickly to open the coffin, but by the time they were able to do so, Uncle Dick was only able to say one last, “God dammit, I know!” before he gasped his last and was pronounced dead. For real this time. Must go now and shop at Ikea. Thanks for the shopping tip. It’s amazing how much you can learn from people with monkey avatars on the Internet.
I think Katja and Archibald are correct. If we say:
A. If God exists, it is not irrational to believe that God exists since belief in the existence of God would be properly basic.
Then we would also have to say:
B. If the Great Pumpkin exists, it is not irrational to believe in the existence of the Great Pumpkin since belief in the Great Pumpkin would be properly basic.
Plantinga does try to offer a defense in the form of “Yes, it would be true if the Great Pumpkin existed, but the Great Pumpkin doesn’t exist, so . . . "
In response to this (as has been pointed out by some philosophers) the Pumpkinite (believer in the existence of the Great Pumpkin) could just as easily say, “Yes, it would be true if God exists, but God doesn’t exist, so . . . “
I’m not sure that I ever said that this wouldn’t be true, but if I did say that, I shouldn’t have because at this point, I really haven’t read anything by Plantinga that shows why both statements (A-B) above wouldn’t be true. I’ve done a little snooping around on the Internet about this, and there seems to be at least some talk that Plantinga has in fact changed his position on this in recent years, agreeing that yes, in fact, if A is true, then B is also true. I don’t know if it is true that Plantinga has changed his position, but if so, I guess it would be much like Kant writing, near the end of his life something that implied strongly that he was an atheist and not a theist.
As for Katja’s post—yes, if a person does not have a belief and/or does not see any reason to believe in the existence of God, then I still think the sane, rational thing to do is to behave as if God does not exist. However, Plantinga does make an interesting point about this. He writes something along the lines that if a person believes in the existence of God (even if he or she doesn’t know why he or she believes), would it then be rational for that person to try and force himself to stop believing?
I don’t think that we necessarily choose our beliefs. For example, if I was ordered to stop believing that I am more than a brain in a vat, I don’t think I could comply with such an order. By the same token, a person who has a strong belief in the existence of God can certainly think about his or her beliefs. However, I don’t think it would be irrational for that person to go on believing without first being presented with what Plantinga refers to as “a Defeater” for his or her belief. Even Plantinga agrees that if a person is presented with “a Defeater” for his belief and that person is not able to arrive at a solution for such a defeater, then his belief could no longer be considered “properly basic.” At this point, then, I think Plantinga would concede that the person’s belief in the existence of God is irrational. However, many Christians don’t care if their faith is irrational. In fact, they pride themselves on it, with the old rhyme:
If faith and reason clash. Reason must go crash!
Anyway, perhaps all of this discussion has been for naught. After combing the loose straws out of my brain, I have come to the enlightened conclusion that the real issue that should be discussed here is the ability to “bend a fucking spoon.” I recall, several years ago, when my Great Great Uncle Dick, who was a retired superior court judge, was nearing the end of his life. He used to sit outside on the porch in his rocker, grumbling angrily about everything from A-Z and saying over and over again, “Goddammit, I know!. He might have also said something about “wibbling,” but that’s hard to say. Some of the cousins are pretty sure that what he was really talking about was a word that rhymed with wibbling and sounded a lot like jiggling. Good old Uncle Dick. He was as tough as nails. He was. His whole life, he boasted of having nothing to lose, but in the end, it was his life and his failing cognition that he was the most bitter about having to give up. In fact, so determined was he to hang on to his life that he broke down and cried like a little girl just before his own funeral. During the funeral, the guests were horrified to hear Uncle Dick knocking on the lid of his coffin. The director of the funeral home moved quickly to open the coffin, but by the time they were able to do so, Uncle Dick was only able to say one last, “God dammit, I know!” before he gasped his last and was pronounced dead. For real this time. Must go now and shop at Ikea. Thanks for the shopping tip. It’s amazing how much you can learn from people with monkey avatars on the Internet.