Theism, Evidence, and Rationality: Contra Plantinga

[robsia]

[AllanS]

Q1) Please explain your initial statement that Pratchett steals hope. I was not the only person who asked that.

A1) Belief that Jesus is a true reflection of the goodness of God fills people with hope. (Tho we suffer, God suffers with us and will resolve all things into glory in the end.) Those who mock God are poisoning others by stealing hope.

Q2) Why do you object to Terry Pratchett making fun of his own creations?

A2) I don't object because this is not what he's doing. You say Pratchett isn't mocking God, but the reviews clearly indicate otherwise. Most people got the message loud and clear. No review (out of 60 or so that I read) shared your interpretation-- that he was merely mocking his own creations.

Q3) Are you saying that only Christians are dogmatic?

A3) Of course not. But many of Pratchett's readers identified his parody as aimed at both Christian structures and clearly stated Christian ideas (dogma). Some exulted in his attack. Some of his readers generalised his parody to include all religions, including Christianity.

Q4) Are you saying that when Terry satires organised religion, he is aiming it squarely at Christians?

A4) Mostly, but not exclusively. This was also the conclusion of many of the reviewers.

Q5) What elements of Christianity do you see in his created religions?

A5) It's been too long since I've read it to be specific. The Great God Om is probably a sufficient clue. But the parody was clear enough at the time, and many reviews confirm I was not the only one to get the point.

Q6) Which Terry Pratchett books have you actually read?

A6) I've read only one Pratchett book, and from the reviews chosen, it would be an easy guess which. I was so angered by its sly intent and incessant preaching that I've read no others by him, but I have read more of the same in Gaiman.

Q7)) When did I insult you?

A7) As you can perhaps see, most of your questions had already been answered. I did not side-step. I read those reviews carefully and regurgitated nothing (tho I was sorely inclined to chuck on occasion.) And I'm not without a sense of humour. It's just that I find spiritual genocide no laughing matter.

Now it's time for you to answer my question. What hope do you have left, Linda?

[robsia]

[AllanS]

[robsia]

[AllanS]

Hi Linda,

Let's pretend Pratchett didn't intend it. How unfortunate that so many of his readers got the message that belief in any God is absurd, a message you think he would personally reject. Many understood this to be specifically the Christian God, as evidenced by the reviews, which he must find even more tragic. I look forward to his public clarification of the issue.

As for narrow definitions, of course you hope for lots of things. You might hope for fine weather, or hope your dress matches your eye colour. This is hardly the hope I've been talking about. You might even hope to find meaning on your death-bed, which will be difficult if the universe is ultimately meaningless. But the human capacity for self-delusion is enormous. Just ask Mr Pratchett. It's not just religious folk who are good at it.

[robsia]

Allan - probably best if you don't read Good Omens . . .

[Robert]

I think that you are possibly misreading Plantinga. It depends on what is meant by evidence. I think tha the is referring to the type of evidence that is defined as such by evidentialists. Remember, evidentialism is a form of the epistemic theory of externalism. The idea here is that proof is contingent upon some external factor to the claimant. Plantinga is probably arguing (I haven’t gone through the whole article but I am somewhat familiar with Plantinga’s deontic internalism) that one needn’t evidence for proving God based upon this proof being internally accessible to the individual making the claim. In other words, Plantinga would say that the evidence for God’s existence is subsumed in a veritas schema, if you will, that is tied to the external world by the mental coherence of it. Something is true not because it is intrinsically true to its external features, rather, because it adheres to an almost Kantian categorization that the raw material of sensual input is subjected to. In short, proof for God is like proof for anything that one makes a claim about, in that, it’s truth value is supported or rejected by the proposition’s conformity to an internal sense of truthfulness, not some externally perceivable system that makes itself known to the intellect as something entirely foreign to it.

Now, another totally independent claim that you made concerned the distinction between holding to a specific religious creed or revelation of God and some Kierkegaardian understanding of the ineffable Other. This is a rather entangling, knotty argument that I haven’t the time to get into fully. However, I will say that it is quite possible that not all religions are wrong and one is indeed right. I suppose you would take issue with the acceptance of one religion over all the others purely on the grounds that they are equally compelling and that there is no proper method of discernment between them. I would say that you are right. There is no way for we as humans to distinguish between the ‘right’ and the ‘wrong’ religions. But, I think that it is not we who decide, but rather it is that sense of plain heartfelt compassion for God that compels us to find him amidst all of the guessing and myth writing. Pushing aside all of this nonsense, God, I believe, is the type of deity that would want His creation to know Him in a fashion that is more than just fuzzy and general. I think that He did offer us a revelation of Him. How do we know which revelation is a revelation of Him? Well it is a long road to argue this one out. I will if you want.