A Review of Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies (Part One)

The assignment for this article is to examine the argument made by Alvin Plantinga regarding where the disagreement really lies in the overall discussion on the question of God and God’s existence with science and naturalism. Plantinga, a theist, wants to clarify where the real controversy is, from the perceived controversy. Reading through his treatment, he discusses the possible conflicts that may or may not exist between science and religion. This review, the first of two installments, considers Plantinga’s position and offers an evaluation.

 Certain Preliminary Matters and His Main Theses
Plantinga considers the real source of the problem to be between theism and naturalism.1 However, before serious consideration can be given, one must understand what Plantinga means by theism, science, and naturalism.

He asserts the theistic position that God does exist; he views God as “a personal agent, who has created the world, and is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good.” Naturalism, on the other hand, is the view God does not exist. A position, which is stronger than atheism, he says, is a worldview, a sort of total way of looking at our world and us. Therefore, naturalism is the view that the world describable by the natural sciences is all that exists, that there is no such person as God, or anything like God.

He defines Christianity in terms of a broad amalgamation of the so-called Christian creeds formulated over time such as the Apostle’s Creed, or the Nicene Creed. He includes the Catholic Baltimore Catechism, the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, and others. Therefore, he defines Christianity in the same type of form, as C. S. Lewis would in Mere Christianity. Plantinga advocates the view that science and religion fit together well, while science and naturalism do not. His overall claim is “there is superficial conflict, but deep concord between science and theistic religion, but superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.” With that premise he discusses four areas of intersection between science and religion: fields where no conflict exists at all, only the illusion of conflict; fields that are genuine, containing conflict superficial and easily resolved; fields, where science and religion are in pleasant concord; and finally a case where deep and irresolvable conflict exists between contemporary science (evolutionary biology) and the religion of naturalism. These four areas form the four divisions of the book. Naturally one would take issue with this approach, as no effort is made to define Christianity from the Scriptures themselves, but, rather, from traditional denominationalism.2

PART I

Falsely Alleged Conflict Between Science and Religion
In this section Plantinga concerns himself with Christian belief and science.3 He claims no real conflict abides between scientific disciplines such as evolutionary biology and physics, if one properly understands these sciences. However, many Christians and scientists alike view science and religion as being unfriendly toward each other. Tension between the two outlooks goes as far back as the seventeenth century, in which the alleged conflict centered on astronomy. Since that time the strain has centered on evolutionary thought. Contemporary writers, such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, et al., champion the conflict.

Evolutionary Biology and Theism
Plantinga discusses the supposed conflict between evolutionary biology and theism, and admits there appears to be conflict, although not a serious one. He chastises scientists, who hold evolution to be undirected, or purposeless, and assert God could have chosen to create the world by means of purposeful evolution. Plantinga quotes Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, who asserts “If God made them, it makes no difference how He made them, as far as the question of design is concerned, whether at once, or by a process of evolution.” In other words, God could have caused the right mutations to arise at the right time; thus accounting for the diversity in the world. Consequently, the chasm between evolutionary biology and theism is not so deep, when one considers the possibility God could have created the universe by means of evolution. Viewing creation this way as opposed to God creating the world ex nihilo in six, twenty-four hour days, it is not so difficult to accept the Darwinian view. From this point Plantinga blisters such writers, as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.4

However, as much as Plantinga wishes to marry evolutionary biology, specifically the Darwinian approach to creation, it simply will not square with what is revealed from the Scriptures themselves. His viewpoint is simply incompatible with an objective interpretation of Genesis 1-3, which states: (1) Adam was created from dust and returned to it (2:7, 19); he was not a humanoid. (2) Eve was made from Adam’s rib (2:21-24), not by a directed mutation. (3) God created every living thing (1:21). (4) God created new forms of life (1:24), not resulting from long periods of gradual development. (5) Each form of life produced its own kind (1:21, 22, 24). (6) God made man in His own image and likeness (1:27). (7) Man could speak a language from the beginning (3:3, 10). (8) Man had the intellectual ability to name the animal world from the very beginning (2:19, 20). (9) Man had moral capacity and responsibility from the very beginning (2:16, 17). (10) Man had the ability to reproduce from the beginning (1:28). Further, notice the doctrinal Christian concepts are based on the literal understanding of Genesis 1-3, which one could not hold onto given the theistic view espoused by Plantinga: (1) marriage (Matthew 19:4-6); (2) the essential quality of both man and woman being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 1 Corinthians 11:7-12); (3) the human race itself (Acts 17:26); (4) the concept that sin entered the world, and the redemption God desires for everyone (Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:45). Plantinga gives no consideration to the biblical text itself, or the ultimate consequences embracing his view; rather the whole purpose is to make evolutionary biology and theism compatible. Even if the theist is somehow convinced with Plantinga’s effort philosophically, he must still wonder how the biblical creation stories are to be properly interpreted with the position of evolutionary biology. If, however, one redefines theism to accord with common thinking of the day, rather than the biblical truth, one can force conformance to just about any philosophy.

Physics and Divine Action in the World
Plantinga makes the argument neither classical physics, nor quantum physics, suggests in any way God cannot intervene in the world. Once again Plantinga appeals to the Heidelberg Catechism with other like sources defining the view of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and wholly good. God has created our world; though Plantinga suggests He could have done it in many different ways. Further, God conserves the world. His point defines the Christian view as “God causes events in the world.” Amazingly, the more modern theologian takes issue with this premise and contemporary theology does not expect, nor does it speak of, divine events on the surface of natural and historical life. They do not really believe God acts, as they hold to the idea God created and preserves, but has exhausted His activity. He reasons theologians have abandoned the idea of God doing anything in our modern world, because they believe science proves God does not act that way.

This portion of the book expounds an interesting treatment; however, once again a precise consideration of the New Testament makes it clear God does, indeed, involve Himself in the world in which we live.5 Science is not really equipped to handle such a discussion; consequently, theologians who look to science for a reasonable explanation are looking in the wrong place, which is much of what Plantinga argues.

PART II

Superficial Conflict
Plantinga affirms superficial conflict exists between evolutionary psychology and religious belief, and historical-critical New Testament scholarship and Christian theology.

He begins by discussing the growing interest found in the field of evolutionary psychology, once known as sociobiology, and the differences found in traditional biblical criticism and historical biblical criticism. From this direction, he says a real conflict exists, that is to say, the claims and assertions from each of these disciplines are incompatible with the theistic, or Christian belief; however, the conflict Plantinga asserts is superficial.6 For a moment think about the reasons people behave the way they do, such as, thinking of others in an unselfish way, or loving the music and art around them? The only explanation the evolutionary psychologist can provide is these behaviors are “spandrel’s,” i.e. traits that are not themselves fitness-enhancing, but are consequences of other traits that are. In other words, genetically-speaking, people act to preserve and pass on their genetics to the next generation. For example, to treat others in a selfless, caring way without getting any immediate benefit for self-preservation, or protection of their genetics for the next generation, can only mean such behavior is the by-product, or consequence, of the real, human behavior, which does act in a preservation-type fashion. Plantinga cites the appropriate authors of such studies and explains the popular growth of such disciples academically. His point is there is conflict, but only superficially. Though it may seem contrary to Christian beliefs to view conduct by such a behavioristic approach; still the conflict is superficial, not defeating. As Plantinga explains, “finding a natural origin for religion in no way discredits it.” Once again, he seems to accept the development viewpoint and suggests no real discordance exists, as God could have used this method, but, in point of fact, did He?

Plantinga moves to present the conflict, which some may see between traditional biblical criticism and what he has come to call “historical biblical criticism.” The difference is traditional criticism is more faith-based; as historical criticism is more scientific in its approach.7 As one reads through the material, he begins to wonder if the historical critic is reading the same Bible as everyone else: all miracles are called into question, the resurrection of Christ is ruled out, and the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth, as a real, living, historical individual is doubted; at the same time claiming this approach is science-based.8 Plantinga admits, once again, the conflict is present, but only superficially. While he tries to carve up theism and Christianity to fit the mold of the evolutionary psychologist, and continues to claim no defeater exists; yet to the honest reader very little of Christianity and religion is left to hold onto. The only substance supplied is the hypothetical, “God could have done it this way; therefore, in reality no deep conflict exists.” For the rest of us, who hold to a truly biblical form of Christianity, as revealed in the New Testament, we immediately understand the two views are diametrically opposed to one another and no reconciliation between them is possible. Consider, for instance, his discussion regarding the divinity of Christ, which is the most distinctive Christian doctrine.9 A Christian is essentially defined as one who believes in, and has been obedient to, the teaching of Christ. No other system is similar, or can be compared, to the uniqueness of the Christian religion. Buddhists do not believe Buddha was God. Muslims do not believe Muhammad was God for the Koran says, “There is no God, but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” The modernist is right here. The essential modernist revision simply views Christ as the ideal man, or merely a prophet, rabbi, philosopher, teacher, social worker, etc. With the recent advent of the more modernist approach, as Plantinga writes, serious doubt exists as to His very existence. This is not Plantinga’s position, this is the position of modernist writers of the historical biblical critical camp; however, he says such a position is not a defeater to Christianity; it is conflict, but only superficially. The truth of the matter is the deity of Christ is the key that unlocks it all. The Christian has not reasoned his way to the doctrines of Christianity by mere unaided, human thought alone over long periods of time, but since Christ is deity (a very rational and provable position); he embraces those tenets, as this reads of their fulfillment in the Christ. If Christ were merely human, or even failed to exist as an historical person, no atonement, no redemption, or covering for sin would be available to satisfy the justice and love of God (Romans 3:21-31). Plantinga’s view that these differences amount to superficial conflict is a fatal error. Without the Christ and all that pertains to Him nothing is left!

He claims the differences, mentioned in part one and part two, do not constitute a defeater, which reveals his epistemology. This point will be addressed in the second part of this review.

 Notes

1 Alvin Plantinga is widely known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and Christian apologetics. He argues some can know God exists based on theological argument and common sense. Plantinga concedes as a theist, he believes God created the world and exhibits intelligent design, but he is doubtful the claim can be shown scientifically. He argues in this work the truth of evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism, that is, if evolution is true, it undermines naturalism.

2 This matter will come up again, as he considers creation and evolution, but he never references the Genesis account to biblically consider the matter from the Christian perspective. In fact, no Scriptures are referenced at all.

3 Plantinga includes other theistic type religions, along with Christianity, including Judaism and Islam.

4 Plantinga’s objection is based on the fact these writers continually make the claim Evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Broadly speaking, Theistic Evolution comes in a number of varieties. His version is that God used an evolutionary process, when He created, to produce all living species of life. The term Theistic means God performed at least one miracle, namely the creation of the universe; this would include Deistic views, which hold God left the world, after creating it. Others hold to God creating matter, and then somehow directed the unfolding of the evolutionary process by directing the mutations at just the right time to bring about the development of each new species. Plantinga seems to assert this type of progressive creationism. Others have tried to make this case: Bernard Ramm and Hugh Ross.

5 The evidentiary value of God, miraculously intervening and setting aside the laws of nature for His own purpose, fill the Bible (cf. John 20:30-31). Special acts of God were possible, the New Testament documents are reliable, as well as, the New Testament witnesses to the miracles. Though it is beyond the scope of this review, the case can be made that miracles were indigenous in the life of both Old and New Testament times, but had a limited purpose and duration and is not for our time today (1 Corinthians 13:9-13). This does not mean God does not providentially avail Himself in our world, as He does.

6 To call studies, such as this, “science” is certainly a question for debate, but Plantinga does not want to get into that debate for the present.

7 Once again, the terms, such as faith and criticism, as well as, scientific are used in a very accommodative way in this work. What Plantinga means by faith is basically what is written in the Apostles Creed and other human creeds. Science means anything claiming for itself an objective form of rational method; certainly not science, per se.

8 This is not to say Plantinga himself holds to such belief, as he does not; however it is his attempt to reconcile two divergent positions, as these, and argue somehow they are compatible. This is his point and what is at issue in his work.

9 Old Testament prophets foretold, and New Testament teaching reveals the fulfilled fact God has, indeed, come in the flesh, as Matthew writes “he is God with us” (Matthew 1:23). To fail to see this point, or disagree with this provable fact, is a defeater.

 ~

 Jim Laws studied Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics under Thomas B. Warren at Harding Graduate School of Religion. He has also studied Philosophy at the University of Dallas, Middle Tennessee State University, and Tennessee Bible College (Ph.D.) He earned a JD degree from Concord School of Law in Los Angeles, CA. He resides in Tyler, TX. Mr. Laws may be contacted at lawspublishing@hotmail.com.

Works Cited

 Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011.