Philosopher who argued for God wins Templeton Prize

[rug]

Chris Herlinger Religion News Service | Apr. 25, 2017

American scholar Alvin Plantinga, a pioneering advocate for theism, or belief in God, as a serious philosophical position within academic circles, was named the winner of the 2017 Templeton Prize.
Plantinga, 84, a retired professor at the University of Notre Dame, won the award for revolutionizing “the way we think,” said Heather Templeton Dill, president of the John Templeton Foundation, which awards the annual prize.

“Alvin Plantinga recognized that not only did religious belief not conflict with serious philosophical work, but that it could make crucial contributions to addressing perennial problems in philosophy,” Dill said April 25 in an online announcement of this year’s award.

Because of Plantinga’s influence, it is no longer unusual for philosophy professors to bring their religious commitments to bear on their work, whether they be Buddhist, Jewish or Muslim, the Templeton Foundation’s statement said.

Until Plantinga, many philosophers viewed theistic belief as logically incompatible with the reality of evil.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/philosopher-who-argued-god-wins-templeton-prize

[JHan]

1. I didn't agree with his conclusions, but it's a joy discussing his epistemology.

A fascinating approach to tackle the business of belief.

Thanks for the share.

[rug]

2. You're welcome.

[Jim__]

3. Im not familiar with his argument concerning the existence of evil.

But this argument about people not choosing to do good, doesn’t seem to cover it:

Until Plantinga, many philosophers viewed theistic belief as logically incompatible with the reality of evil.

Countering that, Plantinga, whose own religious tradition is Dutch Christian Reformed, argued that, “in a world with free creatures, God cannot determine their behavior, so even an omnipotent God might not be able to create a world where all creatures will always freely choose to do good,” the announcement said.

There is plenty of evil in the world that was not created by people, e.g. cancer. I assume there is more to his argument than is presented here.

[rug]

5. The IEP takes a stab at it.

It is important to note that (MSR1) directly conflicts with a common assumption about what kind of world God could have created. Many atheologians believe that God could have created a world that was populated with free creatures and yet did not contain any evil or suffering. Since this is something that God could have done and since a world with free creatures and no evil is better than a world with free creatures and evil, this is something God should have done. Since he did not do so, God did something blameworthy by not preventing or eliminating evil and suffering (if indeed God exists at all). In response to this charge, Plantinga maintains that there are some worlds God cannot create. In particular, he cannot do the logically impossible. (MSR1) claims that God cannot get rid of much of the evil and suffering in the world without also getting rid of morally significant free will. (The question of whether God's omnipotence is compatible with the claim that God cannot do the logically impossible will be addressed below.)

Consider the following descriptions of various worlds. We need to determine which ones describe worlds that are logically possible and which ones describe impossible worlds. The worlds described will be possible if the descriptions of those worlds are logically consistent. If the descriptions of those worlds are inconsistent or contradictory, the worlds in question will be impossible.

W1: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is evil and suffering in W1.

W2: (a) God does not create persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W2.

W3: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God causally determines people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W3.

W4: (a) God creates persons with morally significant free will;
(b) God does not causally determine people in every situation to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong; and
(c) There is no evil or suffering in W4.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/#H4

I'm not sure it helps.

[Jim__]

7. Ah, thanks. Something to think about.

[Bretton Garcia]

10. That's the now-familiar "free will" defence of evil

That religion ends up defending evil, should give us pause.

[edhopper]

4. Fits with

the Templeton Prize agenda.

[rug]

6. What's wrong with it?

The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. Established in 1972 by the late Sir John Templeton, the Prize aims, in his words, to identify "entrepreneurs of the spirit"—outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to expanding our vision of human purpose and ultimate reality. The Prize celebrates no particular faith tradition or notion of God, but rather the quest for progress in humanity’s efforts to comprehend the many and diverse manifestations of the Divine.

Men and women of any creed, profession, or national origin may be nominated for the Templeton Prize. The distinguished roster of previous winners includes representatives of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also others as well. The Prize has been awarded to scientists, philosophers, theologians, members of the clergy, philanthropists, writers, and reformers, for work that has ranged from the creation of new religious orders and social-spiritual movements to human sciences scholarship, to research about the fundamental questions of existence, purpose and the origins of the universe.

What these remarkable previous Laureates have shared is a commitment to exploring one or more of the Big Questions at the core of the John Templeton Foundation's mandate for breakthroughs in discovery and outreach with direct or indirect relevance to "Spiritual Progress." All have been seekers of wisdom, humbled by the complexity of the human condition but determined to chart a path forward with their ideas and deeds. Some Templeton Prize laureates have demonstrated the transformative power of virtues like love, forgiveness, gratitude, and creativity. Others have provided new insights into scientific or philosophical problems relating to infinity, ultimate reality, and purpose in the cosmos. Still others have used the analytical tools of the humanities to provide new perspectives on the spiritual dilemmas of modern life. The Prize seeks and encourages breadth of vision, and new insights that human beings take their spiritual bearings from a range of experiences.

Maybe someone will create a Hitchens Prize for those who make breakthroughs in promoting the notion that religion poisons everything.

[edhopper]

8. The Prize was created by a Wall Street billionare

to promote religion and the ideas that science and religion are not in conflict.

That is their agenda. Personal opinion would dictate how one sees that idea.

Agenda might have a more negative connotation than I meant.

[rug]

11. The source of the funds is as irrelevant as the source of Soros' donations to progressive causes.

The notion that religion and science are in conflict is as positive - or negative - as the minds of those who hear it. All sorts of shit are promoted from all sorts of people all of the time all over the place. You're right. How one views agendas are matters of personal opinion.

[Bretton Garcia]

9. Embattled elements of religion encouraged science

But they were swamped by frequent calls to blind faith instead.

Since? Religious thinkers knew that real science, real critical thinking, would be the end of religion as they knew it.

[rug]

12. "Religious thinkers knew that real science, real critical thinking, would be the end of religion."

I did not know that clairvoyance was science.

[Bretton Garcia]

13. Growing science has already nearly meant the end of ...

...many promises of many miracles. Like promises we cpuld do fully "all" the physical wonders that Jesus did (John 14.13).

An era of modern communication made it increasingly apparent that if taken literally, or at their word, those promises were false. Since we can look around, and clearly see that no one today is, say, literally walking on water. Global communication made it possible to begin to verify this, worldwide.