Philo

In this paper, it is shown that Richard Gale’s creation-immutability arguments are unsound. I argue that God’s act of willing the physical universe to begin to exist a finite time ago does not necessarily require any change in God’s intentions. I also argue that an immutable God is capable of answering prayer and having two-way interactions with His creatures.

In On the Nature and Existence of God, Richard Gale follows majority opinion in giving very short shrift to the doctrine of divine simplicity: in his view, there is no coherent expressible doctrine of divine simplicity. Rising to the implicit challenge, I argue that---contrary to what is widely believed---there is a coherently expressible doctrine of divine simplicity, though it is rather different from the views that are typically expressed by defenders of this doctrine. At the very least, I think that I manage to show that there are ways of understanding the doctrine of divine simplicity that have not yet been adequately examined.

This is a brief critical assessment of Richard Gale’s treatment of arguments for God’s non-existence which make appeal to the concept of omnipotence. I mostly agree with what Gale says, but have found some additional issues worth exploring.

I argue that Gale’s brilliant critique of theistic arguments is a major contribution to the philosophy of religion that can instruct atheologians and theologians for decades to come. However, his unargued appeal to faith, his reliance on the vague properties of being eminently worthy of worship and being supremely great, his failure to come to grips with the atheological implications of maintaining that God cannot know what He will decide, and the incompleteness of his critique of atheological arguments seriously weaken his tacit case against rational atheism and his acceptance of fideism. I see his use of informal polls regarding modal intuitionsas a first important step to a more rigorous approach.

Adhering to the traditional concept of omniscience lands Gale in the incoherence Grim’s Cantorian arguments reveal in talk of “all propositions.” By constructing variants and extensions of Grim’s arguments, I explain why various ways out of the incoherence are unacceptable, why theists would do better to adopt a certain revisionary concept of omniscience, and why the Cantorian troubles are so deep as to be troubles as well for Gale’s Weak PSR. I conclude with some brief reflections on method, suggesting that we pursue the full implications of Gale’s own revisionary remarks and replace his method of analytic argumentation with non-analytic revisionary theory-construction.

John Post criticized Richard Gale’s work for neglecting to consider Patrick Grim style arguments against quantification over all propositions. Such arguments would throw into question the possibility of an omniscient being and destroy the Weak Principle of Sufficient reason that Gale and I have defended, the principle that each true or at least contingently true proposition is possibly explained. Post mounts a Grim-style argument against quantification over all propositions. However, I show that, despite assurances to the contrary, Post’s argument depends on the assumption that if one can quantify over all propositions, then there is a set-like collection of all propositions. I show this by demonstrating that Post’s argument implicitly uses the Schroeder-Bernstein theorem from set theory. On the other hand, a linguistic version of Post’s argument, while not directly relevant to the theological cases, gives rise to an independently interesting paradox resembling Berry’s.

This paper is a study of a pragmatic argument for belief in the existence of God constructed and criticized by Richard Gale. The argument’s conclusion is that religious belief is morally permissible under certain circumstances. Gale contends that this moral permission is defeated in the circumstances in question both because it violates the principle of universalizability and because belief produces an evil that outweighs the good it promotes. My counterargument tries to show that neither of the reasons invoked by Gale suffices to defeat the moral permission established by the original argument.

According to Alvin Plantinga and his followers, there is a complete set of truths about what any possible person would freely do in anypossible situation. Richard Gale offers two arguments for saying that this doctrine entails that God exercises “freedom-canceling” control over his creatures. Gale’s first argument claims that Plantinga’s God controls our behavior by determining our psychological makeup. The second claims that God causes (in the “forensic” sense) all of our behavior. The present paper critically examines and rejects both of these arguments. The second of Gale’s arguments blurs the distinction between causal laws and the conditionals of freedom, whereas the first fails to appreciate the force of the libertarian claim that our psychological makeup may “incline” us in a certain direction without determining our behavior. It also fails to acknowledge the way in which a libertarian like Plantinga might think we contribute to shaping our own characters.

Chapter Four of Richard Gale’s On the Nature and Existence of God constitutes an ambitious 80-page monograph on the “free will defense” (FWD). Much of Gale’s argument is aimed at Plantinga’s FWD, but the scope of his criticism extends, finally, to all versions. Gale’s main contentions are that: (i) no version of the FWD can get off the ground without the substantive, true conditionals often called “counterfactuals of human freedom” by contemporary Molinists; (ii) the best theory of these conditionals (Gale’s “minimalism”) implies that the Molinists’ conditionals are true (so traditional omniscience requires that God know them, as the Molinists allege that he does); (iii) but Molinism would make God a puppet-master, and incapable of creating free persons after all. Gale concludes that proponents of the FWD must accept that there are contingent truths God does not know. I argue that Gale’s objections to non-Molinist versions of FWD are easily rebutted; but that his criticisms of Molinism have considerably more bite.

Richard Gale has mounted the most effective attack on religious experience’s cognitive credentials in recent decades. This article explains why I am nonetheless not persuaded by it. I argue that: (1) Contrary to Gale, mystical experiences do take an objective accusative, and are therefore presumptively cognitive. (2) The tests for the veridicality of religious experience are more like those for sense experiences than Gale allows. (3) Gale’s “big” or “deep” disanalogy (viz., that “there are no analogous dimensions [to space-time] in which the apparent object of a religious experience could be housed” and, as a result, no way to distinguish between religious experiences that are of numerically one and the same religious object and religious experiences “that are of merely qualitatively similar ones”) is not as devastating as he thinks. (4) Gale’s critique of my and Alston’s attempt to defuse attacks on the cognitively of religious experience by appealing to categoreal differences between the apparent objects of religious experience and sense experience is unsuccessful.

My reply to my critics in this issue deal with the following issues: God and time, James’ will-to-believe, the free will defense, and the cognitivity of mystical experiences.