What happens when one of the world's foremost living philosophers comments on a book that attempts to carry off a philosophical and theological treatise in searing, vitriolic language? Read Alvin Plantinga's review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and find out.
I've had a hard time taking Dawkins seriously, despite (or maybe because of) his high-brow, cage-rattling assertions that it takes guts to be an atheist and all theists are thick-headed wusses. Apparently Dawkins hasn't noticed that in the West, soft-core, "practical" atheism is par for the course. Plantinga does me the service of reading this book so I don't have to. [Full disclosure: Neglecting source documents is intellectually lazy when solid communicators are concerned, but Dawkins fully justifies a somewhat blase approach.] Excerpt from Plantinga:
Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.
I'm an Alvin Plantinga fan because he's both brilliant and very readable. Also, he knows when it's appropriate to take someone to the woodshed. This review is helpful.
12 comments:
One of my friends had this in class last night and let me read part of it. The part I read was the one you quoted. My favorite part is when Plantiga says You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores
Luther would be proud;
Alvin Plantinga would get failed out of class for those ad hominems. That's not philosophy; it's just personal attacks. I'm going to say it on the Philosophy Forums. Thanks!
Alvin Plantinga would get failed out of class for those ad hominems.
Except that Plantinga more than backs up his assertions in a well-argued manner. This makes them, not ad hominems, but another, more permissible rhetorical device: an introduction. I encourage you to read the whole article.
scott,
An argument against a person is only an "argumentum ad hominem" (in the sense that you are implying) if the attack is against the person rather than the substance of the argument. In this case, Dawkins himself is part of the issue in that he is the author of the book, and one of his key assertions in the book is that it is time for like-minded atheists to become more vocal in their attacks on Christianity and other religions in general.
So don't come in here throwing down the ad hominem accusation... I mean, what are you, stupid or something? heh... I keed, I keed. Pot, meet kettle... ;)
Oh dear, another God-bothering blog. You choose your heroes very carefully I see: Alvin Who? Can you not accept and rejoice in the fact that we are all the result of the non-random selection of random occurring replicators? The only answer to life and its meaning. Dawkins will be remembered by history as our greatest scientist and by default, our greatest philosopher.
We all choose our heroes carefully. Who wants a random hero? Apparently you prefer Dawkins to Plantinga, which is fair enough. However...
Can you not accept and rejoice in the fact that we are all the result of the non-random selection of random occurring replicators? The only answer to life and its meaning.
Are we being tongue-in-cheek here? Allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if not...
I'd challenge you to explain: 1) why the blind, random generation of life would being something to "rejoice" at, and, 2) how "random replicators" could in any way an "answer for meaning" (emphasis mine).
Since when is ontological incoherence an "answer" for anything? At the very least, this is a very ironic use of terms.
I discovered Alvin Plantinga just today, and I loved his review of Dawkins' book. I'd like to see a response from Dawkins. I'm an agnostic -- neither theist nor atheist -- and haven't made up my mind yet even though I'm 78 years old. LOL LOL
You're right. You are intellectually lazy for not reading Dawkin's book, employing some critical thought and then making up your mind.
You are intellectually lazy for not reading Dawkin's book, employing some critical thought and then making up your mind.
Hi Steve! Nice to meet ya...
Normally I might agree with you. However, I make no apologies for skipping Dawkins' book because I have a thing with sneering atheists: I don't like listening to them.
Don't feel bad, though, I don't like listening to sneering professors, students, clerks, mailmen, gas station attendants, or color commentators either...I have a dislike for sneerers of all stripes.
And with Dawkins, vitriol is so embedded in his writing that the medium is the message. When I want to grapple with atheistic arguments, I go to people who are not snide and acerbic.
Anonymous, I deleted your comments because you cuss too much. If you want to take another stab at making your case without calling your opponents names every second sentence, I'll engage you.
Post a Comment