We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

A Rational Defense of Belief in God

The New York Times recently posted a review of Alvin Plantinga’s book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and NaturalismIn it, Plantinga argues on philosophical grounds that, among other things, theism is not in conflict with science, that a belief in naturalism along with evolution is contradictory, and that “Faith…is another basic way of forming beliefs, distinct from but not in competition with reason, perception, memory, and the others.” It’s a dense, but great read. The video above is a short interview with Plantinga that is also illuminating.

From the book review:

Plantinga holds that miracles are not incompatible with the laws of physics, because those laws determine only what happens in closed systems, without external intervention, and the proposition that the physical universe is a closed system is not itself a law of physics, but a naturalist assumption. Newton did not believe it: he even believed that God intervened to keep the planets in their orbits. Plantinga has a lengthy discussion of the relation of miracles to quantum theory: its probabilistic character, he believes, may allow not only miracles but human free will. And he considers the different interpretations that have been given to the fine-tuning of the physical constants, concluding that the support it offers for theism is modest, because of the difficulty of assigning probabilities to the alternatives. All these discussions make a serious effort to engage with the data of current science. The arguments are often ingenious and, given Plantinga’s premises, the overall view is thorough and consistent.

The interest of this book, especially for secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist—an outlook with which many of them will not be familiar. Plantinga writes clearly and accessibly, and sometimes acidly—in response to aggressive critics of religion like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. His comprehensive stand is a valuable contribution to this debate.

Related Reading

Biblical Versus Magical Faith: Reflections on the ReKnew Manifesto

The second core conviction of the “ReKnew Manifesto” is that we believe it is time for the Church to re-think common assumptions about faith. Faith is at the heart of what it means to follow Jesus and to live under the reign of God. Yet Christians rarely seriously reflect on what it means to “have…

Tags: ,

The Bible is Infallible NOT Inerrant

While the cruciform understanding (explained here) of the “God-breathed” nature of Scripture is in tension with the way most talk about inerrancy (See previous post on inerrancy), I do not believe it is at all incompatible with what the Church has always sought to express by affirming the “infallibility” the Scripture. The core conviction is that Scripture will…

Why Bart Ehrman Doesn’t Have to Ruin Your Christmas (Or Your Faith) Part 8

This is the eighth of several videos Greg put together to refute Bart Ehrman’s claims published in the article What Do We Really Know About Jesus? In this segment, Greg gets into the nitty gritty of why portions of the birth account are not the dumbest lie ever. If you missed the first seven installments you can…

Hearing and Responding to God: Part 3

We decided to change the title of this series to better reflect it’s content. Hope that’s not confusing. Greg continues his thoughts here on hearing when God speaks to us and being willing to respond even when we’re not completely certain. You can view parts one and two here and here.

Lighten Up: Believing in Believing

OK, we don’t really think this is the difference between theology and philosophy, but how does this guy not get that not believing in believing is, itself, a belief? 

The Logical Hexagon Made Simple

by: Greg Boyd The Hexagaon in a Nutshell For those of you who don’t have the twenty to thirty minutes it will probably take to read this essay but who nevertheless would like to have some idea of what the Logical Hexagon is all about, here is my two sentence elevator speech: The Logical Hexagon…