Other Writings of Alvin Plantinga

Theist: "Here's the link to another of his articles, 'Theism, Atheism, and Rationality.' Plantinga believes that 'blind faith' is irrational and that all faith should be based on some evidence. The article above should probably be required reading for posters on the IMDb Philosophy & Religion discussion board. In fact the final argument suggests that the idea that both theists and atheists feel that the other's arguments are dysfunctional is in itself a proof: 'As I have been representing that matter, theist and atheist alike speak of a sort of dysfunction, of cognitive faculties or cognitive equipment not working properly, of their not working as they ought to. But how are we to understand that? What is it for something to work properly? Isn't there something deeply problematic about the idea of proper functioning?' Interesting stuff."

Skeptic: "Thanks for posting this. Most of the stuff by Plantinga that I had found on the web was written at too technical a level for me. I look forward to reading the article you linked. I find this thought especially challenging: 'Plantinga believes that 'blind faith' is irrational and that all faith should be based on some evidence.' I started a thread a few days ago pushing the proposition that the only good evidence for a god is private evidence (private revelation), which by its nature is not subject to debate. It leaves believers and atheists nothing to talk about. One group feels it, and the other doesn't."

Later . . .

Skeptic: "I just read that article. It's a tough one to get a handle on. As I understand it, his argument is the following: 1. That some people have theistic beliefs is a given. A theist can't simply un-believe in a god or gods, just as someone can't suddenly un-believe that Mars is smaller than Venus. 2. Atheists tend to think that theists believe what they believe because they are somehow intellectually flawed. 3. Atheists who think the foregoing (item 2) should be able to present an explanation of how theists are intellectually flawed, i.e., what constitutes a healthy intellect and in what ways are theists' intellects not healthy. 4. Atheists are unable to provide such an explanation beyond mere assertions. What strikes me as odd about the article is that Plantinga doesn't really confront the prevailing answer to the questions raised in item 3. Most atheists (I think) would say that a healthy intellect is one that evaluates data, and draws inferences from data, by a rational process (let's call it the detective explanation). Plantinga acknowledges such an explanation early in the article but then drops it. By the time he gets to item 4 in his argument, he seems to have forgotten it. If he had faced the detective explanation head on, I suppose he could have argued (a) that it's still just an assertion, since we have no way of proving that the detective explanation is right; or (b) even if we assume that the detective explanation is right, theists are not without supporting data (including the data of their private promptings)."

Theist: "Plantinga believes as well that 'a healthy intellect is one that evaluates data, and draws inferences from data, by a rational process (let's call it the detective explanation)'. As your post summarizing his 'Theistic Arguments' proves, Plantinga is willing to provide numerous rational arguments for his faith. It appears that he has a pretty healthy intellect and is willing to argue his position rationally. He has equal opinions of those who have blind faith and those who argue that all those who have faith are blind, both sides need to think a bit more. It is equally wrong to blindly dismiss the arguments of atheists as it is to blindly dismiss the arguments of people of faith."

Skeptic: "That makes sense. (It's what I was trying to get at with the (b) part of my last sentence.) I have another article by Plantinga that I've started but haven't yet had time to finish. It's entitled 'Advice to Christian Philosophers' and is available in PDF here. Interestingly, in section III of the article ('Theism and Theory of Knowledge'), he asks, Why can't a theist's belief in God be itself part of the evidence on which the theist can base a rational conclusion that there is a god? My answer to that question is, Yes, it can be part of the evidence. In fact, I think it's probably the strongest evidence. The theist has an inner light or immediate conviction that I don't have. He has an experience that I do not, and that experience is evidence of something."

Theist: "Yes, I have that article, 'Advice to Christian Philosophers' saved on my other computer. Pretty good stuff. I appreciate the preceding comment of yours and its honesty. If in fact the experience of 'evil' can be considered an argument against God, and I think it actually can be an argument for His existence as well, then the experience of God's presence in one's life should be considered as evidence. Sadly it seems that many atheists don't have that viewpoint and insist that there lack of experience is somehow more real."

(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)