Ve své recenzi poslední knihy (Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism) protestantského filosofa Alvina Plantingy, Ch. Tollefsen tvrdí, že Plantinga, který je podle něj jedním z nejvýznamnějších filosofů 20. a začátku 21. století, systematicky rozebírá tvrzení nových ateistů.
The claim of the new atheists is that Darwin’s “Dangerous idea,” as Dennett calls it, proves that there is no divine agency responsible for the world. As Dennett explains, “an impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.” But the claims of Darwin show no such thing: even if Darwinism accurately identifies the mechanism by which evolution has occurred, Plantinga notes, “It is perfectly possible that the process of natural selection has been guided and superintended by God, and that it could not have produced our world without that guidance.“ (Tollefsen)
Reakce na sebe nenechala dlouho čekat, svým obvyklým břitkým humorem na recenzi a Plantingu odpovídá zástupce nových ateistů – evoluční biolog PZ Myers. Dovolím si odcitovat jednu dlouhou pasáž:
I am certain that “god” is a useless term. It’s utterly incoherent; some people babble about the god of the Christian Bible, which is an anthropomorphic being with vast magic powers and the emotional stability of an 8-year-old on meth. Others talk about an all-pervasive force in the universe, or use meaningless phrases like “the ground state of all being”, or chatter about a reified emotion like “love”. The really annoying thing about discussions with these people is that they’ll cheerfully switch definitions on you in mid-stream. Getting battered because the whole concept of an omnipotent being existing in the form of an Iron Age patriarch in the sky is silly? No problem! Just announce that god is everywhere and in you and that god is love. Trying hard to justify your regressive social policies using an amorphous principle like love, and finding the atheists turning the whole principle of benignity back on you? No problem! Just announce that god so loved us that he became a man, and if you’re opponents reject that concept, they’ll be thrown into Hell by God the Judge.
Plantinga is an excellent example of this theological muddle. On the one hand, he wants to argue for a cosmos-spanning Mind; on the other, a bigoted narrow being with a chosen race and a preferred position for sexual intercourse, who wants to be cosseted and praised for all eternity. Pick a clear definition for god, and be consistent about it, please. And then persuade all the other theologians that your definition is the correct one. Then come argue with the atheists when you know what the hell you’re talking about. (PZ Myers)
Stejně jako Myers si myslím, že pojem „bůh“ je naprosto zbytečný (Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Ano, dnes jsem si zavzpomínal na latinské citáty :)), zvláště pokud jej sami věřící nedokážou nijak definovat. Z takového výrazu se pak stává prázdný pseudopojem, slovo skládající se z nahodilých třech písmen. Podobně iritující je potom schovávání boha do říše transcendence, světa nám nepřístupného. Sluší se asi na tomto místě připomenout, že v souladu s Dawkinsovou škálou, nejsou ani takoví (prý militantní) noví ateisté přesvědčeni o své neomylnosti a „100% neexistenci“ boha; veškeré naše poznaní je revidovatelné.
Více v blogpostu PZ Myerse: I can only read Plantinga for the lulz.