Belief, by Francis S. Collins

May 19 – Alvin Plantinga & Antony Flew

Question 1.  Alvin Plantinga (whom I’ve never heard of) seems to be a pretty sharp guy.  He goes to great lengths to demonstrate the absurdity and contradictive nature of evolutionary naturalism.  Granted, this may fall under the category of “Who cares?” for the general populace, but there are some very interesting ancillary discussion pieces that we may find rather savory upon further inspection. 

According to Plantinga, naturalism (the idea that there is no such person as God or anything like God) makes atheism look like a half-baked effort…calling naturalism “high-octane atheism or perhaps atheism-plus.”  He notes that this mindset is extremely fashionable in the academy…even labeling it as “contemporary academic orthodoxy.”  Where do you see this present in our current culture, both inside and outside of academia?  What persons (and in what positions of influence/power) are most likely to possess and assert this belief?

Question 2.  Plantinga introduces naturalist philosopher Patricia Churchland, summing up her thesis this way:  “What she means is that natural selection doesn’t care about the truth or falsehood of your beliefs; it cares only about adaptive behavior.  Your beliefs may all be false, ridiculously false; if your behavior is adaptive, you will survive and reproduce.”  “All that really matters…is that the neurophysiology cause the right kind of behavior; whether it also causes true belief (rather than false belief) is irrelevant.”

Granted, this is not a theological discussion per se…but it does force us to examine both our history and our purpose as humans in a much different light.  Recognizing the grand diversity of beliefs and truth-claims that emerge out of the human experience, how do we respond, then, to what Plantinga calls the unreliable nature of our collective cognitive faculties?  (The answer, he suggests, is that evolutionary naturalism is therefore self-refuting.)

Question 3.  Fortunately, as Christians, we believe that our beliefs are not limited by the neurophysiology that caused or produced certain adaptive behaviors in us.  We are much more than the principle functions of Churchland’s four-part survival scheme as directed by our nervous systems (page 302).  How does this discussion not only allow, but especially encourage, our Christian understanding of “grace?”  How does grace allow us to believe, even when we fail to understand or agree on God’s activity?

Question 4.  Antony Flew is first and foremost a philosopher.  He is not a Christian and does not subscribe to any recognized religious affiliation.  As he writes at the conclusion of his article, “In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.”  His arguments follow along the lines of natural theology and not any of the revealed religions.  He has no personal relationship with God.  As such, Flew simply argues for the conceptual justification of “infinite Intelligence,” as well as Divine intention and involvement with creation.  What are the pros and cons of such a position?  How does this differ from real faith?

Question 5.  On page 311, Flew identifies the three domains of scientific inquiry that intrigue him most: the origin of the laws of nature; how life emerged from non-life; and the origin of the universe.  How does the Christian faith allow for the scientific community to function as common partners in each of these dialogues?  What perspectives do we have in common?

Question 6.  Flew professes his admiration for both Aristotle and philosopher David Conway.  Toward the end, he writes, “Conway believes, and I concur, that it is possible to learn of the existence and nature of this Aristotelian God by the exercise of unaided human reason.”  While I’m sure that his aim is to disarm the many proponents of atheism, the effect of such statements also alienates Flew from the Christian community, which solidly recognizes faith in God as a matter of revelation, led by the Holy Spirit.  As Luther emphasized repeatedly, faith is unattainable by any amount of human effort or reasoning.  It is always God’s free gift to us.  Why is this contrast so important to recognize?  How does this insight serve to free us in receiving God’s unconditional grace?