[Vision2020] Wayne, God, Plantinga, Wilson, and Evil

Fri Nov 4 15:25:53 PST 2005

Michael, Please answer the last part of [Q2]. W.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 1:59 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Wayne, God, Plantinga, Wilson, and Evil

  Wayne Writes:

  [1]    Just because Plantinga asserts something about trends in philosophical/theological discussions, does not mean you should ovinely accept it and bandy it about with evidence.  How does he know this?  Did he make a valid, reliable, and methodologically correct survey of all the philosophical and theological articles from all the different publications were such articles are likely to occur?  If not, it would be foolish to believe this knowledge claim based purely on his personal experience.  

  And Wayne Also Wrote Elsewhere:

  In my message today, I noted that you blindly accepted Plantinga's word and attempted to use his apparently unresearched assertions on a matter clearly calling for data to make your point.  If this is your normal mode of operation, you are best advised to avoid those selling stock in silver mines, aluminum siding salespersons, and Douglas Wilson.

  Me:

  I gave evidence to believe that most philosophers have given up on the deductive version of the Problem of Evil argument;  Plantinga doesn't need to make 'surveys' of philosophical articles in order to make a statement about the current world of philosophy; he is part of the very life blood of analytic philosophy. Further, this is an academic Oxford University Press publication, heavily scrutinized by philosophers (and even laymen) around the world, and Plantinga, as I noted, provided half a page of footnotes that were attached directly to this very claim. I'd be happy to see evidence that would disprove Plantinga's position.  But I'm not inclined to think that I just consulted the local Witch Doctor on the matter. 

  Wayne Wrote:

  [2]    The cite you quote from Stanford.edu does not support your claims but are counter to them in two ways: 

      [A]     The cite appears to use the word "induction" in the sense in which I previously described, not in the unorthodox way you use in the cite below.

       [B]    The point of the cite is that some of the premises used in various statements of the problem of evil rest upon observations.  To the extent they rest upon observations, they are not absolutely true.  That is not in dispute.  The theory of gravity also rests on observations as does the statement "Evil exists."  Though either statement may not be absolutely true, the probability of the statement that evil exists is about the same as that of the statement when an apple falls from a tree, barring a strong wind, it will fall earthward.

  Me:

  Here's the quote again: "But if this is right, then it is surely best to get that crucial inductive step out into the open, and thus to formulate the argument from evil not as a deductive argument for the very strong claim that it is logically impossible for both God and evil to exist, (or for God and certain types, or instances, of evil to exist), but as an evidential (inductive/probabilistic) argument for the more modest claim that there are evils that actually exist in the world that make it unlikely that God exists." To paraphrase: It is surely best to formulate the argument not as a deductive argument but as an inductive, probabilistic argument.  And this is precisely what my original claim was.

  Wayne Wrote:

  You are using the word "induction" in a quite mysterious, unorthodox way.  In ordinary language induction the word is used by logicians, scientists, lay people, etc thusly:  Observations are made, hypotheses are constructed, expected observations are deduced from the hypotheses, tests are made to determine if the expected observations occur.  How is the induction you speak of different?  Is there some mysterious element that is missing from the above?  

  Me:

  Induction is the process of weighing evidence, where as deduction is syllogistic.  The differences between the two that I laid out is, as far as I can tell, common orthodoxy in the Universities.  I see rain clouds coming and so I believe "it will rain."  Then I walk into my living room and see the weather channel which tells me it will not rain.  Now my original conclusion is weakened, but I still think it will rain.  Then I see the sun coming out and the rain clouds moving in a different direction.  This third piece of evidence now makes my original conclusion very weak and I no longer think it will rain. Plantinga calls me up and tells me Doug Wilson has told God to make it rain; now I know with certainty that it will rain.  This is pretty basic cognitive stuff, and any higher level hypothesis formation, deductions, confirmation theories, and the like, are going to be built out of this basic cognitive behavior.  

  Wayne Writes:

  Slight change of subject:  Two questions (one is multi-part) for you:

  [Q1]    In practice when Christ Church pundits (and other Christian Apologists/Advocates) make knowledge claims about their alleged god, they support these claims with quotations from the bible.  What words in the bible assert that your alleged god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent?

  Me:

  This is a surprising question, and so I'm not sure how to answer it. But here is a first attempt:

  All Good:

  What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life-and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.  And these things we write so that our joy may be made complete.  And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.  If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.  1 John 1:1-5

  All Powerful:

  And what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might, which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come.  And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Eph. 1:19-23

  For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things have been created by Him and for Him.  And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Col. 1:16-17

  Wayne Wrote:

  [Q2]    Suppose you were presented with a statement of the problem of evil whose premises were as highly probable as any premises based on observation could be.  Suppose further, that the arguments in this statement of the problem of evil were all demonstratively valid.

  Would you then admit that the assertion of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being leads to a contradiction, and thus any alleged instantiation of same is logically improbable/impossible?  In other words would you accept the results of true premises/valid arguments which demonstrated the improbability/impossibility of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being?

  Me: No. I would come to the belief that the problem of evil is a good argument for the non-existence of God.  I might even believe that there is a likely-hood that this good argument could end up making my own belief in the existence of God epistemically weak, when considered as a part of my total body of evidence. Of course, there is no way to be sure of this second possibility since my total body of evidence is massive and changing from day to day.   

  How do I correct the quote marks?  I can't figure out what problem you are referring to.

  Thanks

  Michael Metzler

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051104/a556c34e/attachment-0001.htm