On reading Plantinga's article, I've come to some conclusions:
1. I don't really understand why his view of freedom ever seemed coherent to me.
2. Appeals to intuition and conviction ought to be considered a logical fallacy in this discussion. I would say that we more have more intuition that we're trapped in our circumstances than that we're free of them, but maybe that's just me : /
3. Saying that denying freedom will cost us our understanding of moral responsibility is not a conclusive argument. You then must argue why your understanding of moral responsibility is the only explanation for the phenomena. (It isn't, by the way)
4. Material ability to act isn't the same thing as freedom. I can be physically able to watch American Idol, and yet morally unable to do so given my convictions. Don't equivocate by using mundane "freedoms", like choosing what cereal to eat, alongside moral freedom. (Note that moral freedom is essentially freedom from morals, or freedom to determine one's own "ought", since morals are inherently limiting).
5. The following is not a sound argument: "You deny freedom, but the way you define freedom isn't the way I define freedom. Besides, if we define it your way, nobody would have it. If nobody is free, then nobody can be blamed for doing bad things, at least not the way we usually blame people. Besides, the only person I respect that doesn't think like me on this issue is Jonathan Edwards, and it's cool nowadays to assert that he's the greatest American mind and yet disagree with him. We now know that moral responsibility is important. They didn't know that back then...."
6. If you say that it's impossible for you or God to have control over your (or His) character, then don't be surprised when an atheist says it all must happen through biological determination or chance. What other options are there?
7. Don't bring up the infinite regress criticism unless it's absolutely crucial to your argument. (Here, it wasn't. Not even close.)
8. Either you're going to argue using Scripture or not. Don't ride the fence. Don't speak for Christians; speak FROM Scripture or FOR yourself.
9. Don't address the nature of God unless what you're saying comes from tight implication from Scripture, especially when addressing an atheist. Saying that God doesn't have maximal autonomy seems to me to be one of those hidden areas of the tremendous mystery. Not really fodder for an article in Christianity Today's snob section if you ask me.
10. Don't bait an atheist who is known for arguing that the concept of God is evil by saying, "Well, either you agree with me, or it would mean that God is the author of evil." Seriously, this guy's emeritus at Notre Dame? All this type of argument proves is that Plantinga is no longer in the avant garde of Christian philosophy's apologetic to the atheistic elite, but is retired and preaching to the choir.
The article can be found here: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2013/janfeb/bait-and-switch.html
1 comment:
Brother, you inspire and motivate me to attempt to be as free to write with boldness and authority as you are. It's a gift, and even if I'm the only one reading (surely not), it is of great value.
I.E. it is a shame you can't piss off more people with your writing. ;)
Post a Comment