Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Nagel are well-known senior philosophers at Notre Dame and NYU, respectively. Plantinga, a Christian, is known for his contributions to philosophy of religion, while Nagel, an atheist, is known (nevertheless) for his resistance to purely materialist/naturalist/physicalist theories of the mind (e.g. in his famous article, “What is it like to be a bat?“).
Now Nagel has reviewed Plantinga’s most recent book in the NYRB, giving it a much more sympathetic reading than most naturalists would offer. (For what it’s worth, Plantinga is a supporter of Intelligent Design, and Nagel has often spoken of it approvingly, while not quite buying the whole sales pitch.) Jerry Coyne offers a reasonable dissection of the review.
I wanted to home in on just one particular aspect because it was instructive, at least for me. There is a long-standing claim that “faith” is a way of attaining knowledge that stands independently of other methods, such as “logic” or “empiricism.” I’ve never quite understood this — how do we decide what to have faith in, if not by the use of techniques such as logic and empiricism?
Plantinga offers an answer, which I think is at least internally consistent — but that’s part of the problem.
So far we are in the territory of traditional epistemology; but what about faith? Faith, according to Plantinga, is another basic way of forming beliefs, distinct from but not in competition with reason, perception, memory, and the others. However, it is
a wholly different kettle of fish: according to the Christian tradition (including both Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin), faith is a special gift from God, not part of our ordinary epistemic equipment. Faith is a source of belief, a source that goes beyond the faculties included in reason.
God endows human beings with a sensus divinitatis that ordinarily leads them to believe in him. (In atheists the sensus divinitatis is either blocked or not functioning properly.)
Plantinga is clearly trying to separate “faith” from merely “things we would like to believe are true” — faith is knowledge that is put directly into our minds by God. Points for at least trying to offer a reason why we should put credence in beliefs based on faith even if the logic and/or evidence aren’t there.
Here, as I see it, is the problem. Any time we have beliefs of any sort, we need to admit the possibility that they are incorrect. Even if we have think that some result has been reached by nothing but the application of pristine mathematical logic (e.g. the ABC conjecture), it’s always possible that we simply made a mistake — have you ever multiplied two numbers together and gotten the wrong answer? Certainly in an empirical endeavor like science, we recognize that our theoretical understanding is necessarily contingent, and are constantly trying to do better, via more precise and far-reaching experimental tests. These are methods of reaching knowledge that have built-in methods of self-correction.
So what about faith? Even if your faith is extremely strong in some particular proposition, e.g. that God loves you, it’s important to recognize that there’s a chance you are mistaken. That should be an important part of any respectable road to knowledge. So you are faced with (at least) two alternative ideas: first, that God exists and really does love you and has put that belief into your mind via the road of faith, and second, that God doesn’t exist and that you have just made a mistake.
The problem is that you haven’t given yourself any way to legitimately decide between these two alternatives. Once you say that you have faith, and that it comes directly from God, there is no self-correction mechanism. You can justify essentially any belief at all by claiming that God gave it to you directly, despite any logical or evidence-based arguments to the contrary. This isn’t just nit-picking; it’s precisely what you see in many religious believers. An evidence-based person might reason, “I am becoming skeptical that there exists an all-powerful and all-loving deity, given how much random suffering exists in the world.” But a faith-based person can always think, “I have faith that God exists, so when I see suffering, I need to think of a reason why God would let it happen.”
Sometimes you will hear that “science requires faith,” for example faith that our sense data are reliable or that nature really obeys laws. That’s an abuse of language; science requires assumptions, just like anything else, but those assumptions are subject to testing and updating if necessary. If we built theories on the basis of our sense data, and those theories kept making predictions that turned out to be wrong, we would examine and possibly discard that assumption. If the universe exhibited a chaotic jumble of non-lawlike behavior, rather than falling into beautiful patterns, we would abandon that assumption as well. That’s the most compelling thing about science: it always stands ready to improve by casting out an old idea when the evidence demands it.
Okay, this is probably belaboring the obvious for atheists, and completely irrelevant for believers. But it’s useful to have a specific definition of “faith” right there on the page, if only to understand what its dangers are.
A more honest definition:
Faith is what you profess to believe out loud in order to be accepted into a club which demands that as the exclusive price of admission.
@Blunt Instrument (62)
“That’s probably the most succinct description of ‘religion’ that I have encountered.”
I was speaking about atheism. Works both ways.
Based on Sean’s comparison (“An evidence-based person might reason, “I am becoming skeptical that there exists an all-powerful and all-loving deity, given how much random suffering exists in the world.” But a faith-based person can always think, “I have faith that God exists, so when I see suffering, I need to think of a reason why God would let it happen.””) , I have to wonder how many faith-based people he’s spoken to.
In many (if not most) cases the faith-based person has found evidence that God exists,. If you don’t believe me, read John Piper’s blog or the writings of any number of conservative representatives of the monotheistic faiths. You won’t get them to concede that they have faith in God’s existence. They only speak of evidence, so it’s impossible for them to see their answers to the Theodicy question as “needing to think of a reason,” because they believe God spoke to them.
So the track the religious person takes is often the same as the evidence-based person. You couldn’t have convinced the Apostle Paul (to use a classic example) that he didn’t see a vision of Jesus speaking to him. Even if it was an illusion or a seizure or whatever one may choose to chalk it up to, what matters was his certainty. He didn’t see himself as thinking up reasons why suffering happens. I think Paul would have likely said. “I know that there exists an all-powerful and all-loving deity, given how much random suffering exists in the world.”
So skepticism is not the only approach that insists on evidence-based thinking. Creationists are absolutely convinced that they have persuasive evidence that evolution is false, and they see themselves as people in the process of gathering that evidence. In fact, what I think you’ve shown here is the similarity between atheism and fundamentalism. The faith-based example you give is a better representative of religious moderates and liberals.
Christian Vagabond is correct about the religious character of atheism. To state positively that there is no god at all is to claim a fact that cannot be justified by evidence or reason. That does not make the claim wrong, just not reasoned.
Christian Vagabond is wrong in a subtle way about evidence and the question of theodicy. Evidence is not enough for a rational person, the value of evidence is established by reason. “Finding evidence” and embracing it without reflecting on its character is not the act of a reasonable person. Evidence is just some fact, its relationship to belief is established by reason.
The scientific method does not give value to Authority as evidence, and treats anecdotal evidence with suspicion. Spiritual experiences make an awkward fit with empiricism. If one has had a spiritual experience, empiricism has no power to say the experience must have been in any sense “false”. But the reasonable person still must vet their experiences against the process of reasoning.
The problem of theodicy however, points to the other consideration: faith is not just belief in the absence of evidence, it is often belief over and against the evidence of reason. There is no way to reasonably justify the claim that God’s power and goodness can, by reason alone, be squared with the pervasive evil of the world. Only someone who has been “favored” like Paul with some direct experience of God can clear that awesome chasm, and then not by reason, but by trust. Perhaps there is a god, and perhaps that god is evil. Spiritual experiences may solve the question of a god’s existence, but as for that god’s goodness, only pure, unreasoned Trust can suffice. This does not make such trust an error, only unreasoned.
Those who believe but who have not been favored like Paul must choose faith without evidence, and even a Paul must choose trust AGAINST reason. Atheists on the other hand choose disbelief AGAINST evidence; they must assume that all testimony about gods is false even though they cannot prove that assumption.
For myself, lacking the experience of a Paul, and maintaining my belief in the necessity of reason, all I have is doubts.
Sean,
hopefully you can take the opportunity to talk with these people who bring up points that cause personal confusion? :3
Here’s a short interview with Alvin…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7377jU2a8Y&NR=1&feature=endscreen
MKS, thanks, but talking to these folks is just another source of confusion; they don’t all agree even among themselves as to what their experiences mean. The most probable takeaway from their confusion would be to say that they are deluded. If believers all agreed, that would be evidence of their correctness; their disagreements weigh against them. It may be that at least some are correct, but I can’t tell if that is so much less can I tell which ones are correct.
Ooops, my post was meant for Sean Carroll, but good onya Sean Samis for riffing on your Code of Conduct :3
Obviously I composed this before seeing MKS’s clarification above. So I’m gonna post it anyway; the video is worth a response.
MKS, I watched the Plantinga video, I think it supports my conclusion. To put it into his words, we have no warrant to believe in God unless God actually exists, nor any warrant to believe there is no god unless no god exists. In my words: since we don’t know whether any god exists, we have no warrant to believe either way, so we are not justified in taking a position on this question.
Care needs be taken: Plantinga uses “irrational” for a specific meaning different from that I do. Plantinga takes “irrational” to indicate a defect of mental process/equipment. I take “irrational” to mean “not in accord with proper reasoning”.
The bottom line is that I do not have warrant to believe in God, nor to believe there is no god, so I can take no position. Plantinga (and others) allow for some kind of fundamental, axiomatic knowledge of God, but I have no such thing; so I am left where I reported earlier: doubting all propositions about God or gods; and unaware of any rational evidence (warrant?) of any gods’ existence.
MKS, thanks, but talking to these folks is just another source of confusion; they don’t all agree even among themselves as to what their experiences mean. The most probable takeaway from their confusion would be to say that they are deluded. If believers all agreed, that would be evidence of their correctness; their disagreements weigh against them. It may be that at least some are correct, but I can’t tell if that is so much less can I tell which ones are correct.
Regarding “… quicksand” I will keep this short and sweet. I am a former atheist and a current man of science. I think you are missing a basic concept of belief (as I once did). First, faith is absolutely given by God. It is not a result of logic. If your ever interested, let me know and I’ll tell you my story of epiphany. Second a logical fact base test of the validity God is by its very nature inconsitant with faith. If one could prove God’s existance (or disprove it) faith would not be needed. In fact, atheism is as much a faith based religion as christianity or islam. There is no way to prove logically that God does not exist yet atheists (remember I was one for 30 years) appear to firmly grasp that belief system. An atheist’s god is reason, individual will and intellect
Lastly and most importantly is the misconception regarding a person’s use of faith. A person of faith willhave noneed nor desire to try to objectively decide between God or no God. If blessed with faith of devine organ, there is certainty. The idea of making a mistake when multiplying two numbers is a bad analogy. Instead, with faith the certainty in His preence is akin to counting to zero. God is a certainty for a person of faith, as certain as I am that I did not make a mistake counting to zero. At least for me, I really does not care whether I can prove the truth of my belief to another. I know it’s truth for me. All that matters is strengthening my relationship with God. That same faith also keeps me from judging you for your belief. A faithful person knows that God is working in the lives of even those that most loudly disown Him.
God is not about proof. It is about opening your heart and letting love and compassion happen. If you do that, there will be no question in your heart what is Truth.
One of my favourite models right now: science is a way of knowing where we uncover/discover facts. Art is another way of knowing where we create meaning. Religion is an art.
Confusion happens when the two are mixed; thus we get people trying to prove Genesis or that G_d doesn’t exist…I think the ‘truth’ is much richer and more fun :3
and we know what happens when people have an impacted sense of humour–they invade Iraq or fly planes into buildings :3
CJB, you wrote that “atheism is as much a faith based religion as christianity or islam.” I agree, assuming that by atheism you refer to the belief that there is no god, and not merely the failure to believe in some god.
You also wrote that “…faith is absolutely given by God. It is not a result of logic.” If true, then those who have no faith (or no longer do, such as I) cannot gain faith by any means except waiting for God to give it. This also means that if God condemns the faithless to punishment for their lack of faith, then he is punishing them for his decision not to give them faith.
But you also wrote that “It is about opening your heart and letting love and compassion happen. If you do that, there will be no question in your heart what is Truth.” You may believe that God is constantly trying to plant faith in everyone, but I know that is not true. My story is almost the opposite of yours: I am a person of faith whose faith died. This did not happen without a struggle, and I can say that if there is a god, that god took my faith from me. I am not an atheist, but I do doubt the existence of any god. About gods I have only doubts and questions.
I can tell you that I miss having faith, but sincerely I don’t have any now. So I know that God (if any god exists) does not “give faith” to everyone. That means that not only are logical arguments pointless, so is evangelism. If God does not give faith to someone, then all the evangelism in the world will not give faith. And if God does give faith, evangelism is not necessary. If you have no faith, there’s nothing for it but to wait and see.
If God does give or at least offer faith to everyone, how does one recognize that they have received such an offer? Telling them to “open their hearts” and just let it happen is not meaningful; some report doing so and finding only nihilism or other dark emptiness. If logic and reasoning cannot help, then we are left with waiting, as before.
You can, of course, reject my testimony as erroneous, but you base your comments on your personal experiences, which anyone could reject as erroneous too. Our conflicting experiences give third persons nothing to go on but logic and reason, or to just wait and see.
Sean Samis,
“…thanks, but talking to these folks is just another source of confusion…”
You read like you have a good head on your shoulders :3
I like going to different places of worship and experiencing (I’ve even had a historically-secretive scientologist be open aboot her beliefs); I’ve noticed that even within the same congregation people are going to have different ideas on just what their beliefs are
I even am aware at how I categorize people as ‘believer’ and not, in which I am always involved
I’m even married to an episcopalean :3 and the United Church of Canada has an atheist minister :3
I’m glad not everyone shares the same sense of humour or worldview; that would be quite boring :3
CJB, please let me clarify something. When you wrote that faith is about “opening your heart and letting love and compassion happen” and that “there will be no question in your heart what is Truth” you are–intentionally or not–describing an infallible process. For those of us without faith, when we look at the many faiths within the world we see that the “faithful” have found wildly different and conflicting “truths”. Clearly this “opening your heart” process is just not reliable. Much less is it infallible.
You can and might say that there is no infallibility, that many persons are wrong about the “truth” they think they know. From us non-believers you will get no objection to that point. If that is true, then something needs to fill the role of reason and/or logic; something that helps sort the true from the mistaken. Any “person of faith” needs to “objectively decide” whether the “truth” they sense is real or false. But if (as you wrote) faith is wholly outside logic, then there is nothing to fill that gap, and all faith is far from certain.
Perhaps for those “blessed with faith of divine origin, there is certainty”, but either all gods are insane or not all faith is of divine origin. Either way, certainty is lost. Some faith certainly could be of divine origin, but who can tell? Absent the application of reason, we can never be certain that any of it is divine. Probably a lot of faith is mere projection of human desire. A conscientious person of faith must beware of that risk. But without any means to work through this danger, they cannot be certain of the truth of their faith. This does not mean they must give up their beliefs; it does mean that they cannot honestly claim certainty.
Great article, I wanted to expand on one of your points:
“So you are faced with (at least) two alternative ideas: first, that God exists and really does love you and has put that belief into your mind via the road of faith, and second, that God doesn’t exist and that you have just made a mistake.”
There is, as you mention, a range of alternatives between those two extremes, including:
* God exists and divinely imparts knowledge, including that specific belief
* God exists and divinely imparts knowledge, but he didn’t impart that SPECIFIC belief
* God exists but doesn’t divinely impart knowledge that way
* God exists but is substantially different than you believe Him to be
* God exists but doesn’t interact with the world in any meaningful way
* God doesn’t exist
Plantinga doesn’t even provide a way to distinguish between the FIRST TWO of these, let alone all the rest. So even if you believed everything he said about divinely imparted knowledge through faith, you’d still have no basis to decide on WHICH knowledge you believed was divinely given (unless everyone had the same faith-imparted knowledge, which is obviously not the case).
BradC;
Well put.
Blunt Instrument can’t have it both ways. You can’t bring up the testaments and suggest that God doesn’t interfere.
According to the testaments he banished man from Edan. He caused a flood. He spoke to numerous people. He burned a bush. I could go on and on, and this doesn’t even include the things Jesus did, who, according to some cults/sects, is God.
So don’t suggest that God doesn’t interfere when the Bible suggests the opposite.
And so many Christian sects suggest that God is a loving God. God talks to us and listens to us.
You can’t have it both ways. He makes floods killing almost everyone, but he can’t interfere to save babies dying in agony? This is what the blog post was about. Faith doesn’t even require self consistency. It’s all just self delusion. You ignore huge basic faults in your reasoning.
You say “Any time we have beliefs of any sort, we need to admit the possibility that they are incorrect.”
I don’t understand your point of view. Where does this “need” come from? It certainly isn’t an innate drive. In fact, if anything our need to have faith is a more basic drive. This skepticism of yours is a very modern, American (or Western) tendency compared to our “faith” faculties. And I would suggest that you’re going against your inner nature in taking on a skeptical outlook. It may work well in the lab, and in intellectual discourse, but that’s about all it’s good for. Faith can get you much further than that. It can help you live, not merely argue. Once you become a believer, you’ll see skepticism for what it is: as a kind of stunted way of seeing the world.
To put it another way, have you ever considered the need to be skeptical of your skepticism? We all need to believe in something. You seem to believe in a progressive unfolding of knowledge through skeptical enquiry. Perhaps God doesn’t work that way. If He did, He’d be a theory or an equation. But in the Christian conception of God, He’s a person.