Key Moments
Can Belief in God Be Properly Basic? | Michael Tooley
Closer To TruthWant to know something specific about what's covered?
We've already dissected every moment. Ask and we will deliver (with timestamps).
Key Moments
Believing in God could be 'properly basic,' meaning it doesn't need external arguments, but critics argue this ignores global religious diversity and a god could make its existence far more evident.
Key Insights
Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in God can be 'properly basic,' akin to believing in other minds or the reality of the past, requiring no further arguments.
Tooley challenges the modal ontological argument for God's existence by paralleling it with an argument for a necessarily existing maximally evil being, suggesting a contradiction.
An argument from evil, developed by Tooley, suggests that the probability of unknown evils balances out potential unknown goods, making the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being unlikely.
Plantinga suggests that naturalism, based on evolutionary principles focused on survival (feeding, fleeing, fighting, reproduction), cannot adequately explain our capacity to understand reality, thus posing a self-contradiction.
Tooley posits that a deity could easily make its existence unmistakable through direct communication and spectacular miracles, questioning why God would remain hidden if true.
Both Tooley and Plantinga express skepticism about the concept of a 'super simple' God where all divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence) are identical to existence itself, as this leads to conceptual difficulties.
The 'properly basic' belief in God
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga proposes that belief in God can be 'properly basic,' meaning it doesn't require inferential justification from other beliefs, similar to how we accept the existence of other minds or the reality of the past. This stance suggests that religious belief can be rational without needing extensive philosophical arguments. Plantinga's argument implies that if a belief is 'properly basic,' then its justification comes from the belief itself or the circumstances in which it arises, rather than from supporting evidence. This approach aims to validate religious belief by placing it on a par with other fundamental, non-inferential beliefs that form the bedrock of our epistemic lives.
Critique of the ontological argument
Michael Tooley critiques traditional and modal ontological arguments for God's existence. He points out that the modal ontological argument, which uses possible worlds to assert that if a maximally great being could exist in one world, it must exist in all, can be paralleled by an argument for a maximally evil being. Tooley argues that if the concept of a necessarily existing, perfect being is coherent, then the concept of a necessarily existing, maximally evil being must also be coherent. Since a necessary evil being leads to a contradiction, he concludes that necessarily existing beings of this kind are impossible, thus undermining the ontological argument's conclusion. This demonstrates an attempt to show logical parity between theistic and atheistic concepts of necessary existence.
The problem of evil as evidence against God
Tooley presents a probabilistic argument from evil. He contends that the sheer amount of evil in the world, exemplified by events like the Lisbon earthquake, makes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God improbable. He utilizes diagrams to illustrate that the probability of unknown evils existing is often balanced by the probability of unknown goods. However, if the initial state of affairs is bad, and potential balancing goods and evils are equal, the original badness 'carries the day.' This suggests that the existence of suffering is not adequately explained by the traditional theistic framework, even when considering potential hidden benefits or divine purposes that lie beyond human comprehension. This argument aims to show that the evidence of evil significantly weighs against the likelihood of a benevolent creator.
The challenge of religious disagreement
Tooley questions Plantinga's 'properly basic' belief in God by highlighting the vast diversity of religious beliefs across the globe. He contrasts the near-universal belief in other minds and the reality of the past with the fractured landscape of religious doctrines. While Buddhists, Hindus, and others hold different beliefs, including concepts like transmigration of souls, and many do not believe in an omni-deity, Plantinga's assertion of proper basicness for belief in God seems to overlook this global disagreement. Tooley implies that if belief in God were as foundational as belief in other minds, one would expect a more consistent acceptance across cultures, rather than the wide array of differing religious and non-religious outlooks.
Naturalism, evolution, and the limits of understanding
Plantinga argues that naturalism, particularly when combined with evolutionary theory, faces an internal contradiction. He suggests that evolution has primarily selected for cognitive faculties geared towards survival – the 'four Fs' (feeding, fleeing, fighting, reproduction) – rather than for accurately understanding reality itself. Therefore, if one believes in both evolution and naturalism, one is left without a robust justification for trusting their own cognitive faculties to grasp truth beyond immediate survival needs. Tooley acknowledges that under theism, it makes sense to expect that a God would grant humans the capacity to know of His existence, aligning with the idea that God would want to be known.
The evidential role of divine revelation and miracles
Tooley argues that if a God exists, it would be straightforward for such a being to make its existence unmistakably evident. A God could communicate important truths directly, perform spectacular miracles (like altering the moon's position), and thereby provide solid, perhaps even more solid than belief in other minds, evidence for its existence. This contrasts sharply with the idea of belief in God being 'properly basic' without such clear, external validation. Tooley questions why a God would choose to remain hidden or rely on deeply personal, potentially unprovable 'basic beliefs' when direct, evidential interventions seem well within the capabilities of such a being.
The counter-argument: freedom and soul-making
The argument against making God's existence overtly evident is that humans would become 'automatons' lacking free will, independent morality, and a sense of wonder. This perspective, known as 'soul-making,' suggests that a world with uncertainty and the possibility of choice, including the freedom to do wrong, is necessary for moral development. However, Tooley provocatively questions whether a world with fewer 'morally horrendous' choices, as might occur if God's existence were undeniable, would necessarily be worse, implying that the avoidance of actions by figures like Hitler and Stalin might outweigh the perceived loss of 'soul-making' opportunities.
Internal consistency of the classical God concept
Tooley and Plantinga find common ground in their skepticism regarding the concept of a 'super simple' God, where attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence are not merely entailed by each other but are, in fact, the same single property of existence. Tooley argues that such a concept is difficult to analyze and defend, and he personally finds the idea that, for example, omnipotence entails perfect goodness unconvincing, as he can conceive of a perfectly evil, omnipotent being. This shared critique suggests that complex theological attributes, when collapsed into a single undifferentiated property, present significant conceptual challenges.
Mentioned in This Episode
●Books
●Concepts
●People Referenced
Common Questions
The book 'Knowledge of God' (2008) by Alvin Plantinga and Michael Tooley explores various arguments for and against the existence of God, stemming from a debate between a theistic and an atheistic philosopher.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
A philosopher of religion and Christian believer who co-authored 'Knowledge of God' with Michael Tooley. He is known for developing the concept of 'properly basic' beliefs and arguments related to the ontological argument and the problem of evil.
Anselm was a medieval philosopher and theologian who is credited with first formulating the ontological argument for God's existence.
A philosopher known for his work on the argument from evil, particularly from a naturalistic perspective.
Pol Pot was a Cambodian revolutionary who led the Khmer Rouge regime, responsible for the Cambodian genocide.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 65 summaries
32 minDoes Human Agency Drive Progress? | Martin Seligman
154 minAlex O'Connor: God, Evil, and Why Reality Is So Strange (Full Conversation)
32 minAgency as an Engine of Human Progress | Martin Seligman
28 minThe Limits of Theodicies for the Problem of Evil | Michael Tooley
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free