Skip to main content

Science and Religion Discussion

Here is a video of an interesting discussion on science and religion with Alvin Plantinga, W.L. Craig, Richard M. Gale and Quentin Smith.

HT Mike Almeida at Prosblogion


Ron said…
That was interesting. Plantinga was my favorite. Smith's argument against the existence of God struck me as very dubious to say the least. Craig did a good job of pointing out the flaws in that. Smith though did get the better of him when he mentioned the "point of eternity," and the timelessness of God. Kinda lost me there.

Dale was interesting. I wish they spent more time on the issue of libertarian free will and theism but time was limited.

Smith's biggest mistake was to say that naturalism and Darwinian evolution are inseparable. This is not true. Darwinian evolution only implies that natural processes were the only things involved in the evolution of life; it does not say anything about metaphysical realities. Naturalismm, however, is a set of metaphysical beliefs which include causal closure, atheism, etc.
exapologist said…
Hi Ron,

I agree with all the nice points you make here. I'm often puzzled by the things Smith says.
M said…
I can attest from first-hand experience that Smith is much better on paper than he is to an audience. Of course, this is obvious when contrasted with Craig--a brilliant rhetorician and sophist of the highest order. Craig wants to pursuade and convert; Smith wants to learn the truth and doesn't care about his appearance, delivery, or Craig's specious, crowd-swaying debate tactics.

However, I absolutely relished seeing Craig stumble when Smith called him out on his theo-babble nonsense; I loved how he didn't let Craig get away with apologetic bullshit. Sadly, the moderator (sympathetic to Craig, I suppose), quickly changed the subject.

Smith and Craig are both Presentists; and I always thought that Smith's arguments against Craig's were less understandable. But looking at them again--after many years of intensely reading the both of them--I think that Smith's "Presentist Eternalism" has more going for it than what I (and others) originally thought. His theory of time--connected with his Naturalism--is almost Spinozist while making room for presentism. Very interesting. Great discussion.

Oh, and I can't stand listening to Plantinga anymore. I've seen him speak several times in the past year and I'm convinced that he (1) has nothing new to say and (2) has long since passed his heyday (70's-1990).

Though I disagree almost entirely with the lot of 'em, Swinburne is a far, far more capable, coherent, and intelligent philosopher than either Craig or Plantinga.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

Andrew Moon's New Paper on Recent Work in Reformed Epistemology... the latest issue of Philosophy Compass. Here's the abstract:
Reformed epistemology, roughly, is the thesis that religious belief can be rational without argument. After providing some background, I present Plantinga's defense of reformed epistemology and its influence on religious debunking arguments. I then discuss three objections to Plantinga's arguments that arise from the following topics: skeptical theism, cognitive science of religion, and basicality. I then show how reformed epistemology has recently been undergirded by a number of epistemological theories, including phenomenal conservatism and virtue epistemology. I end by noting that a good objection to reformed epistemology must criticize either a substantive epistemological theory or the application of that theory to religious belief; I also show that the famous Great Pumpkin Objection is an example of the former. And if a copy should make its way to my inbox...

UPDATE: Thanks!