The (by their own admission, liberal) New York Times posted an interview by Gary Gutting with Alvin Plantinga titled, Is Atheism Irrational? (February 9, 2014 AD).
Plantinga is an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, a former president of both the Society of Christian Philosophers and the American Philosophical Association, and the author, most recently, of Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.
A previous article of mine played off of one of Plantinga’s arguments, see here: Evolutionary argument for Christianity or, why Atheists should convert.
Previous articles on the NYT are:
Atheism and The New York Times
The New York Times – Latest Victims of Atheist Propaganda
ALVIN PLANTINGA: …In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’”…lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.
I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in the sensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.
So, there is some but “not enough.” This is rather generic coming from a philosopher and from a scientist. YHVH may reply to Dawkins, “Yeah, I’ve already heard that one.”
GARY GUTTING: …There’s always the possibility that we’ll find a scientific account that explains what we claimed only God could explain…isn’t a major support for atheism the very fact that we no longer need God to explain the world?
ALVIN PLANTINGA: …Thomas Nagel, a terrific philosopher and an unusually perceptive atheist, says he simply doesn’t want there to be any such person as God. And it isn’t hard to see why. For one thing, there would be what some would think was an intolerable invasion of privacy: God would know my every thought long before I thought it. For another, my actions and even my thoughts would be a constant subject of judgment and evaluation.
See this video for examples of why some people chose Atheism.
This last point is interesting: if God is then God would be a personal being. If God is not a personal being then, ultimately, nothing is of relevance beyond our personal concerns. Yet, if God is and God is a personal being then God would be responsible for judgment. This is because making judgments is a basic characteristic of personhood.
Now, if God is and God is a personal being and God is a judge then, by definition, God would be the ultimate judge. To be the ultimate judge, God would be omniscient otherwise, God could not render ultimate judgment (taking into consideration each and every possible motive, thought, action, etc.).
Plantinga continues thusly:
Basically, these come down to the serious limitation of human autonomy posed by theism. This desire for autonomy can reach very substantial proportions, as with the German philosopher Heidegger, who, according to Richard Rorty, felt guilty for living in a universe he had not himself created. Now there’s a tender conscience! But even a less monumental desire for autonomy can perhaps also motivate atheism.
GARY GUTTING: Especially among today’s atheists, materialism seems to be a primary motive. They think there’s nothing beyond the material entities open to scientific inquiry, so there there’s no place for immaterial beings such as God.
This shows the utter logical and philosophical naivety of today’s atheists. They do not merely “think there’s nothing beyond the material entities” they demand it, promulgate it (dogmatheism) and assert in in a presuppositional manner; it is not their conclusion but their premise.
Yet, of course, science (not mere curiosity, mere observation or even mere experimenting but the rigors of the scientific method) is a tool that was designed by Bible believers who reasoned that a rational being, God, created a rational realm, the material realm, and populated it with rational beings, humans, who could therefore, rationally discern the material creation.
Seeking to apply science to anything non-material is using the wrong tool for the wrong job. It is tantamount to staring into the corner of a room, seeking nothing but the corner, concluding that the corner is all that exists and refusing to turn around to see the rest of the room.
However, via science we can, have and are discerning the existence of a mind that designed the universe.
For more on the (lack of) relationship between Atheism and science, see:
Atheism and Science : “Love the Lord Your God With All Your Mind” Matthew 22:37
Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 1
Question for atheists: is “God did it” a science stopper?
Do atheists confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism