Barely Legal Substance

« Brits Podcast the Beautiful Game | Main | Monday Meditation: Under Consideration »

March 31, 2006

Notes from Al Plantiga Lecture: "Evolutionary Psychology and Scriptural Scholarship"

As Josiah Roe and Matt Gillikan have reported, Al Plantiga, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, is in Chattanooga lecturing at Covenant College for the weekend. Here are my notes from his first talk, "Evolutionary Psychology and Scriptural Scholarship". My interjections are in italics. No quotes are direct.

[Update]: Gillikan posted his notes to the same lecture early this morning.

Method

• Philosophers like to talk about method


• So do scientists


• It’s admired just as much as guessing

A True Conflict between Religion & Science

• Evolutionary Psychology


• Understand all distinctive features of humans in terms evolutionary origin.


• Art, humor, play, poetry, love, religion, et al are understood in terms of evolution


• “This particular trait arose {suddenly | gradually} by random mutation, it was then found to be adaptive and adopted for further evolution by natural selection”


• Examples


• A bad explanation for religion: As prey, the switch from prey to predator resulted in a celebration. Religion is that celebration.


• Better explanation: Religion is a spandrel of rational thought. Natural selection encouraged the development of natural thought. Attempt to acquire non-existent goods by negotiating with nonexistent supernatural beings. (R. Stark later became a Christian and now teaches at Baylor)


• Michael Ruse: The group with moral intuitions will do better. However, there is no such thing as


• Herbert Simon


• D. S. Wilson: “see if the detailed properties of Calvin’s Church [in Geneva] can be interpreted as adaptation to its environment.” The aims and goals of the Church are provided by evolution.


• Plantiga interjects: I believe that I live in Indiana because that’s what is the case. There’s no goal in my belief. What’s up, Reid.


• Freud: Religion isn’t a dysfunction of cognitive faculties, but those faculties don’t function as to produce true beliefs.


• Plantiga:


• Why do scientists come up with theories incompatible with Christian belief?


• Belief in atheism


• Methodological naturalism


• Science proceeds as if God is not a given


• The data set for a proper scientific theory can’t refer to God or employ what one knows or thinks one knows by way of revelation


• Proper scientific theory can’t refer to God or employ what one knows or thinks one knows by way of revelation


• The background information for a proper theory can’t include propositions entailing the existence of God or employ what one knows or thinks one knows by way of revelation.


• Scripture Scholarship


• Traditional Biblical Commentary


• Tries to explain what the Word of God means.


• Take for granted divine revelation


• Once you figure out what God is saying, God is not required to defend it.


• Historical-Critical Biblical Scholarship


• An Enlightenment project


• Understand the Biblical books from reason


• Does not assume divine revelation


• Proceed with biblical criticism in a scientific manner


• Two ways to be scientific in regard to scripture scholarship


• Troeltschian


• God never does anything specially.


• Duhemian


• Use only evidence or beliefs everyone accepts.


• Defeaters for Christian Belief


• Suppose Christians are committed to a high view of science. Further suppose that science opposes Christian belief. Does that constitute a defeater for Christian beliefs? What should the reaction be?


• No.


• Traditional Christians think they have a source of warranted belief (faith and testimony). Such sources require the defeater to argue that they are wrong.


• Science is already a part of a Christian’s evidence base. So some part of my evidence base says that some other part of my evidence base is unlikely.


• eg the sources of information about you whereabouts are both memory and what people tell you and video surveillance. That these accounts differ does not mean that my belief about where I was is defeated.


• Analytic epistemological logic mumbo-jumbo.

Questions

• Should METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM be fought in courts?


• The Dover case relied on expert witnesses, philosophers of science, who said that science requires METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM, and that science make empirically verifiable propositions.


• I am so going to sue somebody and then claim that the defense of a settlement in my favor ruining the defendant is dependent on economics being a science, and that it cannot do so under the Dover case.


• Should Dembski’s quasi-methodological naturalism be accepted?


• Yes. Except that since Christians have a bigger set of beliefs, they should be coming up with explanations that include elements of that larger set.


• Should biblical scholarship be treated the same as Shakespearian scholarship?


• Questions of authorship, diverging accounts, etc do not present a problem to for Christian belief.


• Metaphor of an archer.


• Yes, accept. But Christians should do splience, using the empirical method and Christian beliefs to arrive a explanation that incorporate the elements of their evidence base.


• Okay. Where’s the beef?


• There may not be a difference between science and splience. But there are projects that arise from Christians beliefs, and we should pursue those projects. Atheism produces unique results, so should Christianity.


• Response to methodological naturalism’s use of Occam’s Razor type arguments against Christian’s evidence base.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/30869

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notes from Al Plantiga Lecture: "Evolutionary Psychology and Scriptural Scholarship":

Comments

Sumners' "Folkways", 1911 addressed many of the same questions. He seemed to define the expression as "antagonism". Yes I know, prior to Darwin being given more than a nod, still applicable to the science/religion divisions.
Best regards

Posted by: glen at April 3, 2006 10:39 PM

Sumners' "Folkways", 1911 addressed many of the same questions. He seemed to define the expression as "antagonism". Yes I know, prior to Darwin being given more than a nod, still applicable to the science/religion divisions.
Best regards

Posted by: glen at April 3, 2006 10:49 PM

Post a comment