PDA

View Full Version : God Is not Dead Yet; Is any of this really new?


mijopaalmc
23rd July 2008, 12:19 PM
God Is Not Dead Yet (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html)
How current philosophers argue for his existence.
William Lane Craig | posted 7/03/2008 10:50AM

You might think from the recent spate of atheist best-sellers that belief in God has become intellectually indefensible for thinking people today. But a look at these books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, among others, quickly reveals that the so-called New Atheism lacks intellectual muscle. It is blissfully ignorant of the revolution that has taken place in Anglo-American philosophy. It reflects the scientism of a bygone generation rather than the contemporary intellectual scene.

That generation's cultural high point came on April 8, 1966, when Time magazine carried a lead story for which the cover was completely black except for three words emblazoned in bright red letters: "Is God Dead?" The story described the "death of God" movement, then current in American theology.

But to paraphrase Mark Twain, the news of God's demise was premature. For at the same time theologians were writing God's obituary, a new generation of young philosophers was rediscovering his vitality.

Back in the 1940s and '50s, many philosophers believed that talk about God, since it is not verifiable by the five senses, is meaningless—actual nonsense. This verificationism finally collapsed, in part because philosophers realized that verificationism itself could not be verified! The collapse of verificationism was the most important philosophical event of the 20th century. Its downfall meant that philosophers were free once again to tackle traditional problems of philosophy that verificationism had suppressed. Accompanying this resurgence of interest in traditional philosophical questions came something altogether unanticipated: a renaissance of Christian philosophy.

The turning point probably came in 1967, with the publication of Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. In Plantinga's train has followed a host of Christian philosophers, writing in scholarly journals and participating in professional conferences and publishing with the finest academic presses. The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Atheism, though perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat.

In a recent article, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith laments what he calls "the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s." He complains about naturalists' passivity in the face of the wave of "intelligent and talented theists entering academia today." Smith concludes, "God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments."

The renaissance of Christian philosophy has been accompanied by a resurgence of interest in natural theology, that branch of theology that seeks to prove God's existence apart from divine revelation. The goal of natural theology is to justify a broadly theistic worldview, one that is common among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and deists. While few would call them compelling proofs, all of the traditional arguments for God's existence, not to mention some creative new arguments, find articulate defenders today.

So I am genuinely confused as to why the author thinks that any of the argument he presents in the rest of the article are particularly salient (almost as if he thinks that they have not been discussed by atheists or philosophers before), as they have been kicked about and amply addressed for at least 2000 years.

Comments?

Loss Leader
23rd July 2008, 12:52 PM
It sounds as though he's reasoning from his conclusion.

Kthulhut Fhtagn
23rd July 2008, 01:17 PM
I've never been particularly impressed with Platinga's arguments. His ontological proof is highly presumptive in regards to the nature of God and furthermore begs the question. Why again is the probability of God's existance 50-50? And why again does that help a specific theology if we're only assuming that the existance of such a vague entity known as "God" is 50-50? The argument that you are unable to prove the existance of a specific deity and that another deity is false is still highly effective.

Maybe someone else can shed some light on this for me but the argument that verificationism is self-refuting seems pretty much like a sematics driven argument to me. Am I correct?

mijopaalmc
24th July 2008, 02:21 PM
I just thought that the article was a bit confusing in that it opened in such a way that it engendered the feeling that it was going to discuss the ground breaking developments in theology that had resurrected "God" since the 1960's, but it then went on to rehash the ancient "bare bones" of the argument for "God's" existence. Of course the article did appear in an evangelical magazine the readership of which presumable doesn't need convincing that "God" exists.

Moochie
24th July 2008, 03:01 PM
I figure god will be dead when we are.


M.

-Fran-
24th July 2008, 03:06 PM
I think the way he expresses himself he makes a rather good case for that the notions of a god really is a man made construction. It seems from his own reasoning almost as if god's existence depends on if humans thinks he is alive or dead :)

Civilized Worm
24th July 2008, 03:12 PM
Sounds like the pathetic old "lot's of smart people believe in god" argument.