Modern Pensées

Reconsidering theology, philosophy, culture, economics, and politics

Introduction to Apologetics, Part 6: Alvin Plantinga

with 5 comments

Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga, Genius

I remember being introduced to Alvin Plantinga, first in my Philosophy of Religion course at University of Florida.  I recall my professor, who was a gregarious Jewish atheist, saying something to the effect, ‘Alvin Plantinga has single handidly made Christianity respectable again in philosophy… his arguments are so damn good, that I have reconsidered my atheism.’  This piqued my attention and after reading several different arguments, journal articles, and Warranted Christian Belief, I wholeheartedly concur with my former Professor.

Like Blaise Pascal, some Christian apologists transcend categorical description.  Alvin Plantinga is one of those that you cannot pigeon hole into a single camp.  His epistemology relies heavily on presuppositional thinking, Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, and Reformed Thought.  His free-will defense against the problem of evil relies on a Molinist position of Divine sovereignty (at best).  His ontological argument employs modal logic.  His default writing style is Analytic Philosophy.  He teaches at a Catholic University (Notre Dame).  Plantinga is a strange amalgam indeed, and in this writer’s view, a good balance of cross-pollination.

Here is an attempt at a brief summary of his contribution to Christian thought:

Warranted Christian Belief and God as properly basic (Reformed Epistemology)

In Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga makes a case that several things are properly basic.  Something that is properly basis does not require proof and functions as the bedrock that we layer our daily lives on top of.  One such example is Descartes’ famous “cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I exist.”  The most important thing that Plantinga voraciously argues for is that the existence of God is properly basic [and the atheists gasp, throwing the yellow flag calling for a 5 yard illegal motion penalty].  Plantinga makes a very good case (along with the presuppositionalists) that belief in God requires no proof or justification.  Consider the following – can you prove that other minds exist.  It sounds like a stupid question, but can you?  I could be a brain in a vat, or Neo in the Matrix, or the muse of some evil genius and all of what I think is reality could be completely constructed, and I am on the only thinking being.  None of us thinks or believes that we are the only mind in existence.  In simple terms, the belief in other minds is properly basic in a similar way that belief in God is properly basic.  Plantinga spends the rest of the book defending that the Christian worldview is justifiable.

Free-Will Defense Against the Logical Problem of Evil

There are several Problem(s) of Evil in philosophy.  The most common had been the logical problem of evil:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.    2. There is evil in the world.    3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

Most philosophers have conceded that Plantinga has solved the logical problem of evil in his Free-Will Defense, and have given up on the logical problem of evil.  First off, it is important to say that his argument is a defense and not a theodicy.  A theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world created by God.  A defense exists merely to show a logically possible set of premises that refutes the trilemma above.  Plantinga’s argument goes like such:

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.  God, Freedom, and Evil, pp. 166-167.

In undergrad, I wrote a paper reworking Plantinga’s argument removing a free-will view of Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility and inserting a compatibilist view in its place.  I believe that my paper did no harm to Plantinga’s argument and that his argument is still compatible with compatibilism.

Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

The evolutionary argument against naturalism is sheer brilliance.  He argues that if evolution and naturalism are true then it seriously undermines both evolution and naturalism.  Naturalism is the idea that we hold ideas “true” today because they have “survival value.”  If evolution and naturalism are true, then human thinking evolved to produce ideas that have survival value and not necessarily truth.  The set of beliefs that maximizes my ability to eat, reproduce, and fight is not always what is true.  Evolution and naturalism, therefore, are tuned to survival rather than truth.  Therefore, this casts significant doubt on trusting our thinking itself, and included in that thinking are both the ideas of evolution or naturalism themselves.  Genius.

Modal Logic Version of Ontological Argument

It took me 3 years, 4 philosophy professors, and 4 versions of the argument to finally understand its genius.  It is not sophistry; it is not a parlor trick; it is not a aberration of grammar.  Do not go chasing the ontological argument unless you have copious amounts of time, a willingness to make your brain hurt, and the patience to deconstruct why Gaunilo and Kant’s objections are incorrect.  If you are up to the task, start here.

In the wake of evangelicalism’s massive receding from all public spheres (particularly the University), Plantinga has nearly single-handidly re-carved out a space for the Christian to have a voice in philosophy and respectability in the University.  You would be wise to have a basic understanding of his thinking.

Up next, concluding thoughts on the relative merits of the different apologetic schools.

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. 1. It is proposed that my brain (H) has maximal pain (P) in a given possible modal argument (M) if and only if my brain is hurting, wearied, and wholly confused in modal argument; and

    2. It is proposed that my brain has maximal pain if it has maximal confusion in every possible modal argument.

    3. Maximal pain is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that my brain has maximal pain. (Premise)

    4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that my hurting, wearied, and wholly confused brain exists.

    5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that my hurting, wearied, and wholly confused brain exists. (By S5)

    6. Therefore, my hurting, wearied, and wholly confused brain exists.

    Ouch. Good stuff though. You are brilliant. Thanks for your posts.


    Brett Bradley

    November 12, 2009 at 12:00 am

    • Brett,

      It does hurt, doesn’t it… but the ontological argument is worth the time to mull it over and consider, consider counter-arguments, and consider why the counter-arguments are wrong. I am of the opinion that is you accept axiom S5, that this modal logic ontological argument actually demonstrates that God exists necessarily.

      The Marines say that, “[physical] pain is weakness leaving the body.” Well I say that, “[Mental] pain is stupidity leaving the brain.”



      Michael Graham

      November 12, 2009 at 10:11 am

  2. I don’t really have a problem with axiom S5 (If I’m understanding it correctly), and the modal logic ontological argument for the existence of God makes sense to me (after I think about it, write it down on paper, talk out loud to myself, etc.). It doesn’t immediately click. Godel’s ontological proof is more concise, and speaks clearer to my distracted brain.

    At first, all of this seemed very circular though. The premise relies on the conclusion, and the conclusion on the premise.

    Brett Bradley

    November 12, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    • Brett,

      Every first principle relies on circular reasoning. The problem for the atheist is that they do not have something higher than logic to justify the use of circular reasoning for that first principle. The Christian has Scripture and Jesus as the very incarnation of wisdom/reason/logic/truth.

      Consider Mathematics: How do you “know” that 1+1=2. We “know” this because we have defined “1” and “2,” such that, 1 and 1 added equate to 2. Mathematics itself, like every worldview, is ultimately based on circular (and in this case circular axiomatic) reasoning.


      Michael Graham

      November 12, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  3. […] Apologetics, Presuppositional Apologetics, and the specific apologetics of Blaise Pascal and Alvin Plantinga.  Finally, we employed the three phases football as an analogy for the different apologetic […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: