Reddit reviews Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
We found 29 Reddit comments about Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
The problem is, a lot of the books that Christians here are recommending are very different in both style and direction than the kinds of books that you're talking about with Dawkins and Hitchens. Which, to be frank, ought to be expected. Detailed philosophical argumentation just isn't something most Christians are worried about or interested in since, once establishing faith, theology and discipleship are far more interesting intellectual pursuits to believers.
In any case, here are a variety of more serious academic responses to the kinds of books you've been reading:
Reasonable Faith By William Lane Craig
Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga
Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? by Alister Mcgrath
Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith by Francis S Collins
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? by John C Lennox
Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target by John C Lennox
Edit: And don't forget that you don't have to buy any of these books to read them! For serious. Library card + inter-library loan system via internet is the way to win.
The Science vs. Religion debate is a false dilemma. The debate is between world-views. Science is a mode to discover truth, not a world-view (it makes no claims of morality or oughtness - in fact, it can't make them). Scientism is a world-view centered on science that makes certain moral claims (despite the warnings of David Hume). But when someone is debating science and religion what they are usually debating is scientism and theism (though not always). And because the debate often conflates science and scientism, it is often superficial and misleading.
If you want a very good and thorough treatment of this by one of the leading philosophers read "Where the Conflict Really Lies" by Alvin Plantinga.
If you don't want to dive into a decent-sized book, take a look at these lectures by John Lennox which explore this debate to show the logic of theism (and, as a mathematician at Oxford, he uses the term "logic" deliberately):
This is just the tip of the iceberg on this. But will give someone a good overview of how to properly frame the debate without pigeon-holing into the many false dichotomies/dilemmas people seem to settle into on this.
For more LDS-centric resources, see:
There's also the 2013 Mormon Interpreter Symposium on Science:
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga addresses this concern in the excellent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
From the dust jacket.
"It's astonishing that so many scientists, philosophers, and theologians think there is a serious conflict between science and theistic religion. In this superb book, the world's leading philosopher of religion explains, with characteristic wit and perceptiveness, why none of the main reasons for thinking there is such a conflict are even remotely successful." --Mike Bergmann, Purdue University
There's a very hot book circulating right now called Knowledge of God, it's a debate between Tooley, a very notable atheist philosopher of religion, and plantinga, another one, who is theistic. Plantinga also has an excellent book called Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Basically, there is a trend in philosophy (naturalism) to make topics in philosophy reduced to topics of science (e.g. to clear up areas that philosophy used to cover and turn them into science fields). This trend is usually taken to be anti-theistic in nature, because the general idea is that God is a non-natural concept, which we receive knowledge of through non-natural means (intuition, a priori faculties, all that epistemological good stuff). Some theists are naturalistic about God (spinoza) but the grand majority think you get knowledge of him not with scientific methods, but with philosophical, mathematical, logical, personal, etc methods.
So there is a current in philosophy that those methods can be undermined as proto-science, and should be fixed by philosophers and turned into science. This current is alive and well today, as according to the philpapers survey, most professional philosophers are naturalists (although some of these naturalists, such as timothy williamson, don't think that philosophy is only a linguistic tool that we use to create sciences, but instead has its own objects of study for research. Nevertheless, the general point is that naturalists are very distrusting of "hocus pocus" metaphysics and epistemology. They don't want to speculate about what exists from the armchair, or at least want to do that as little as possible, whereas the non-naturalist wants to make robust claims using only intuition and personal experience, not science).
You are both right. The original usage of the term is as you describe, but nowadays it is primarily used as an insult. Here is how Alvin Plantinga describes the word in Warranted Christian Belief (with edits to avoid this subs silly profanity filter):
>We must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ‘son of a b!tch’, more exactly ‘sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ‘sumbitch’. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use): it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ‘stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ‘sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’.
Speaking of Plantinga, /u/Jazz_Musician would do well to read his book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. I think it will resolve his questions quite well.
So I'll recommend two authors, and a blog:
Here's his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Necessity-Clarendon-Library-Philosophy/dp/0198244142
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
A PDF of warrented Christian Belief: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plantinga/warrant3.html
You should be able to get these books through interlibrary loan, if your library has an interlibrary loan service. Basically, this allows you to borrow books from other libraries.
Lastly, this blog might interest you: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/
Friend, it's time to get into philosophy, because let me tell you, it is FAR from an open and shut case when it comes to whether or not it is logical to believe in God.
It's not an easy or a simple topic, and if you want to defend your faith you're going to need to argue about things like metaphysics.
I'll give you some links to get you started:
http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/Logic_and_the_Absolute_Platonic_and_Christian_Views-by_Philip_Sherrard.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
http://pitt.edu/~jearman/Earman2000HumeAbjectFailure.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Other_Minds
From what I remember, this book is pretty good. I disagree with the conclusions, but they are very well laid out and addressed. After that I would search for responses to Plantinga.
This is an interesting one, but I can't find the full thing for free. I will keep looking.
For all things science and religion I recommend: Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga and Atheist Delusions by David Bentley Hart (please forgive the title, it was the editor's choice not his).
For the "problem" of Evil I suggest God, Freedom, and Evil again by Plantinga and Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright.
As a general primer on theology and philosophy go look at Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP
MorganMoreland (not the banking institution) and William Lane Craig.You're right to an extent. My view is that your husband is spouting the typical atheist mumbo jumbo that you find too much in here (and elsewhere). The atheist position does incur the burden of proof despite what the "weak" atheists would like to believe.
But that doesn't mean that one cannot come to a rational reason to accept that God doesn't exist (or most likely doesn't exist). Here is one such method:
This is called the Evidential Problem of Evil by the atheist philosopher of religion William Rowe. This is not a rock solid proof of God's non-existence and there are other philosophical proofs that come to the same conclusions from different directions. However, you'll note that there are also no rock solid proofs of God's existence (though there are very strong arguments for God's existence). From my point of view, it seems things are at an impasse and one can find perfectly rational reasons to accept that God does exist and perfectly rational reasons to accept that God does not exist (and, further, perfectly rational reasons why we cannot have any rational reason to believe in the existence or non existence of God, to boot!). Confused? I know I am and I suspect a lot of other folks are far more confused than they either know or will admit.
I'm a bit concerned that your husband has bitten off on the /r/atheism style of thought that are proudly (sadly?) on display in many responses to you in this very post. That would be a shame, but it's very common. I can tell you this if your husband has gone down that rabbit hole, there is no amount of arguing with him about God's existence that is going to change his mind. It'll only make him resent you and it will make him consider you stupid and he'll be able to make your life quite miserable. That's the fact of the matter, the typical internet atheist has a massive superiority complex and considers even the slightest wavering from the atheist dogma to be an indication of mental retardation.
So how would I approach it? That's a tough one. NOT through anger or guilt trips (a la "you committed to a Christian relationship and are backing out without my consent") or debates. Maybe try a simple discussion. Hear him out with a willingness to really listen and absorb all of his thoughts on the subject. Just hear what he is saying and try to understand where he is coming from. That, at least, is a good start and it generally is worthwhile for any time your marriage gets a bit rocky. If you're lucky and if your husband is truly a good person, he'll come around to being open to listening to why you believe what you believe. So now would be a good time to start brushing up on that. From the sounds of it, your days of lackadaisical acceptance of Christianity are behind you. There are plenty of resources for you to learn about how a belief in God is rationally justified. Here are a few books and websites that you might want to start reading:
Anyhow, I can't imagine that this is going to be a lot of fun for you any way you slice it. You can at least mitigate the pain by not playing the hypersensitive christian part that he is being indoctrinated that all religious people are. Stay rational and loving and caring above all else and demand that he do the same. You can work this out, but it'll take effort from both of you.
This Alvin Plantinga book
I would read this if you get a chance
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
I've been thinking about this. The works which first pop to mind are probably too technical for general interest as they are written to be read by other professional philosophers. I'm trying to think of what might be interest to the educated person who isn't a Philosophy major.
*****
Peter Kreeft
Peter Kreeft writes a lot of things for a general audience. He is a Catholic philosopher at Boston College. He often speaks at other universities, and has even been part of a debate with a former professor of mine, so he is at least pretty well-known in philosophical circles. He has a bunch of free readings on the "featured readings" and "more featured readings" pages of his site, which also has lectures and such. Here is his author page on Amazon. His books are also mostly intended for a general audience. I've read a handful of them, so if you're thinking of ordering one, or finding it at a library, let me know and I'll give you my two cents. The Sea Within: Waves and the Meaning of All Things is interesting. He is fairly old, and a lifelong surfer. In that book he draws analogies between the natural pull the ocean has on us and the pull God has on us. He also has many Socrates Meets... books which don't have so much to do with religion, but provide accessible introductions to various philosophers (e.g. Socrates Meets Sartre).
*****
Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga is a very prominent philosopher, and a Christian. Much of his writing is intended for the professional philosophical audience, but some if it might be accessible to a general audience. Here is his Amazon author page. Let me know if you're thinking about checking out any of his stuff. Like I said, a lot of it is more technical than Kreeft's. Also, he is in the analytic tradition, whereas Kreeft is more in the continental tradition. I think that further distances him from the casual reader.
Some of Plantinga's works which might be good:
>This book is a long-awaited major statement by a pre-eminent analytic philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, on one of our biggest debates -- the compatibility of science and religion. The last twenty years has seen a cottage industry of books on this divide, but with little consensus emerging. Plantinga, as a top philosopher but also a proponent of the rationality of religious belief, has a unique contribution to make. His theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
*****
Søren Kierkegaard
If you're thinking more historically, I think Kierkegaard can be very interesting. He is considered by many to be a proto-existentialist (a sort of existentialist before existentialism existed as a movement). Fear and Trembling is relatively easy to read, short, and probably his most read work. I recommend it. Also, here is his Amazon author page.
*****
Others
Those three were just a few of the many Christian philosophers I find interesting. There are a whole lot more, some more accessible than others to a general audience. This is still just a fraction of the historical Christian philosophical scene, but I think it will give you a good start. These are all of them off of the top of my head whom I have studied to some extent.
Contemporary:
Historical
****
Author's Note: I've been working on this entry for about 45 minutes now. I hope someone reads some of it. Time for a break. If you have any questions, or wanna talk philosophy, let me know, it's in my blood.*
> They're having me read it because I'm asking them to read The God Delusion. I feel like it's a fair trade off.
I don't think the book they're giving you is a fair trade. Science and the existence of God are not even in the same categories. What you need is PHILOSOPHY and METAPHYSICS. I suggest you read: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga is one of the greatest Christian philosophers alive and in short his theme in this short book is that the conflict between science and theistic religion is actually superficial, and that at a deeper level they are in concord.
Speaking just for myself, I found this exchange a bit painful to follow. Part of it was the formatting of the wall-of text arguments, part of it was the fact that (I'm sorry) both of you weren't making clear and cogent arguments.
I quickly realized (without watching the video) that InspiringPhilosophy was parrotting Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. That argument purports to prove (roughly) that if Naturalism is true then humans as finders and understanders of truth/reality cannot be trusted to be reliable, so we must either be most likely wrong about practically everything, or we must be intelligently designed by God.
Plantinga's argument can be found on the 'net by Googling for his name and "EAAN" or similar terms. Or one could check out his book.
Personally, as an amateur, I'd be hesitant to step into the ring against a professor of philosophy. Fortunately, I don't need to, because other professors of philosophy have done so and opined on how silly Plantinga's argument is. Here's Massimo Pigliucci doing that, but it's easy also to Google for "criticism EAAN" to find other objections.
Plantinga is a Christian apologist. He's fairly well known for his ontological argument for the existence of God, which is critiqued here. He's dedicated much of his life work to proving that Christianity is true, and his EAAN is of course part of this effort.
I mention all this background because it explains why, ironically, his appeal to the fallacy of human inquiry applies to himself much more than to the project of science he's trying to attack.
The Scientific Method is designed to minimize the effect of human error on the quest for knowledge. An important part of this is to start with the evidence and develop a theory on the basis of the evidence. Plantinga is starting with his preferred conclusion and then scrounging around for ideas that could support that conclusion. If he were "doing" science, that would be lousy science, because this procedure predisposes him to cherry-pick the evidence.
I've followed the discussion (the original, not this video and your response) and get the impression that, for all his credentials, many modern philosophers consider Plantinga an embarrassment to philosophy. I see no reason to take him seriously on this matter.
John Lennox is a great resource on the Christian vs. Science debate. Here is one of my favorite speeches by him. He explains why and how popularizers of atheism today enjoy forcing people to choose between science and God. In his book Where the Conflict Really Lies, Alvin Plantinga argues that the real debate of religion vs. science is Naturalism vs. Science. He defends the idea that Naturalism has become a religion, rather than a state of temporal ignorance--it is meant to be an assumption until indications of the supernatural arise, though now people will accept both premises and the conclusion of arguments such as the Kalam (for example, Richard Dawkins and Danniel Dennet)--but then deny it once they learn it has theological implications. So he attempts to move the debate to the view most scientists today hold, and then presents his own defeater for naturalism to add to the list that almost expelled it from academia until it was preserved in a sort of pretension by modern scientists. Why? Because academia has secularized on the basis of a misrepresentation of Christianity--that God is something to be found within His creation, instead of "outside of it" (immaterial, spaceless, timeless, uncaused...).
Alvin Plantinga also wrote Knowledge and Christian Belief (a more approachable version of his Warranted Christian Belief), which is part of how he restored intellectual credibility to the Christian worldview within academia. He has since caused a resurgence in Christian theism in the anglo American collegiate realm. Here he explains that argues that belief in Jesus is a properly basic belief, meaning that it is one that we arrive at without reference to anything else within reality. For example, you believe that you are not a brain in a vat being controlled by a mad scientist to think you are here---but you can't prove it! It is a metaphysical (the philosophy of existence) assumption that is epistemologically (the philosophy of what is justified/warranted as knowledge) justified. Thus, wholly apart from evidence besides the revelation of the Holy Spirit (perhaps noncommunicable), and in the absence of a defeater for Christian theism, belief in Jesus is an epistemologically warranted metaphysical initiative.
A balanced view only can be developed by hearing both sides.
Timothy Keller - The Reason for God - Believing in an Age of Skepticism (chapter summaries)
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity
J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
Alvin Plantinga - Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism
Francis S. Collins - The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Craig A. Evans - Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
You can find longer list over at christianapologetics or at Kindle Deals in Christianity, Christian Worldview, and Apologetics
bethinking.org exists to help you make sense of the big questions about life.
The Biologos Foundation Ressource Finder
The Veritas Forum Talks
You might want to try /r/debateachristian. And Alvin Plantinga has written a book with some very good arguments against naturalism called Where the Problem Really Lies, if you really want to challenge yourself on this issue. It is pretty heady though, I will warn, and some of it is nearly indecipherable without some higher education in philosophy.
Agreed. Alvin Plantina's book on the subject strongly affected my thoughts on the matter.
The argument, as I understand it, takes naturalism to be committed to denying mental causation. As our mental experience would therefore be irrelevant to survival, it would not evolve under selective pressure, but simply mutate randomly. I suggest Alvin Plantinga's book Where the Conflict Really Lies for a well-developed form of the argument which addresses questions and objections like these in detail.
Lewis is a Christian apologist and fiction author beloved by many Christians, but many posts here on /r/atheism are (deservedly) making a mockery of his many fallacies. He's a popular hack, basically.
I'm more upset at people like Alvin Plantinga. A well-regarded professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, this guy makes similar arguments to Lewis but he manages to wrap them into a lot of philosophical smoke and mirrors reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas.
Plantinga's latest big work (that I know of) is a book wherein he purports to refute Naturalism by saying that if our senses and reason are naturally evolved and not divinely created, then they are unrealiable and so is every conclusion we draw with them, and therefore Naturalism proves itself unsupportable.
Check out “Where the Conflict Really Lies” by Alvin Plantinga. I found it interesting and helpful.
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
Hi, as somebody who has no clue what to think on this issue, and is going to hopefully be working in some apologetic capacity in the near future, I feel for you.
What comforts me is that even if evolution is true, it makes the most sense to be a Christian theist, as opposed to a naturalist. It's sort of a complicated argument, but it could give you some peace of mind, as it has for me (:
There is a philosopher named, Alvin Plantinga. He is renowned for having made the argument above, and I think it's profoundly comforting. The whole thing is laid out in a book, entitled, Where the Conflict Really Lies.
Plantinga summarizes the thesis in this video. However, if you aren't used to reading philosophy, I would caution you before you bought the book or anything. It's the real deal; a high level work. It's not like reading Kant or Locke in a modern sense, but it isn't exactly a cakewalk either.
Hope this is helpful!
If you want some books to read on how science and faith can be reconciled, I recommend The Language of God and Where the conflict really lies.
This video on God and evolution is really cool
Also, William Lane Craig did a podcast on the topic of Creationism and Evolution
Also, see this answer from WLC: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/evolutionary-theory-and-theism
The space-time thing is honestly absurd, I don't see how it could not make sense for a necessary being (insofar as He exists) to not exist. There being no space-time wouldn't matter seeing as how He is a fundamentally immutable and incorporeal being?
As for the supposed witness of other faiths, at that point you have to get into the trenches and quibble logically and philosophically. And I feel that Christianity most definitely wins those battles.
The "problem" of evil isn't really a problem at all. If you read any Plantinga you will become familiar with the free will defense and the moral responsibility (in many forms) defense to that claim. What are the contradictory omni-claims? If you are speaking of how God can be omni-just and omni-forgiving, in Christian theology these adjectives are used to describe qualitative intrinsic maximums, not quantitative infinites, thus there is no conflict.
What is the problem with Atonement, the Trinity, and God's special revelation in the OT+NT? The Gospel is God speaking to everyone who reads it, right now. His Revelation culminated with Jesus Christ, and that was infinitely sufficient. Why would He need to continue talking directly to people, in light of this grand special revelation and His general revelation, not to mention His manifestation through the Holy Spirit throughout our lives? (You'll have to be more specific about the "problems" with atonement and the trinity in order for me to respond to them.)
And I most certainly do see a huge amount of change in my life and the lives of those around me through Christ; I feel that I have gained a true Christian witness in the past year, and since that point my life has become infinitely better and more fulfilling (not to mention religious experiences I and others have had). What are some of the things that Christ told His disciples they could do that believers cannot do? Link specifically to scripture if you want to sustain this objection.
Also, you should read Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga. It is another fantastic book.
God bless.
No worries. Glad I can be of assistance. A couple quick comments to make, however.
>I wasn't even sure that god was real. I mean, the logical part says that he's probably not. But the instinct part feels uncomfortable with the idea. To outright state that God does not exist bothers me for some unknown reason.
First of all, I think that this is a common misconception among many people today for a couple of reasons. First of all, logic as far as I understand it has gone both ways. Yes, a number of philosophers and scientists today are convinced of a lack of God, but there are also a number of thinkers who are using logic to demonstrate his existence. A really good one to check out if you're interested is Alvin Plantinga, a very well respected analytic philosopher who's also a Christian. I'm not trying to convert you, but rather would like to give you some options if you're interested in being rational and religious. And he's got a couple books you may find interesting. 1 and 2. I've only read parts of the first one, and found it very interesting. I'd recommend reading his essays on reformed epistemology, and his work on naturalism being irrational. Very good reading, and not terribly technical, so you should be able to get into it just fine.
And on the note of instinctual belief in God, I'd say don't be afraid to trust in your instincts. As one of my profs told me, gut-feeling's don't make for great philosophical arguments in themselves, but they do often indicate that there's the possibility of an argument being made. You often know a lot more than you realize; all the reading, studying and analysis is simply finding ways to express it to others. So yeah, don't be so hesitant to trust yourself. Good luck.
Nice! On my list now. https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
What do we owe them? Perhaps a recommendation to check out Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism from a local library. It is a devastating and witty dismembering of arguments contained in the works of Dennet, Dawkins, et al.
(Plantinga writes from a Reformed, rather than Catholic, background, but he's a top-notch philosopher and this book is a gem.)
I'd recommend Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism. It's a very dense and complex book, but you're asking some of the deeper questions of life, so don't be too surprised. CS Lewis also has a good book on miracles that's a shorter and more accessible read, if you like the time to chew through Plantinga's arcane tome.
Specifically related to your question about miracles, he advocates that a Christian cosmology views the universe as an open system, in contrast to the closed system cosmology of pure naturalism.