Are there any polytheistic philosophers of note? Monotheism, pantheism, and atheism apppear to be the only abiding religious structures that philosophers can produce. Polytheism is too indifferent.
Additionally, Planting offers an argument to the effect that intellectual malfunction cannot be objectively defined with respect to belief in a god.
Not quite sure what you mean, here.
He does not ask how the believer acquired his belief or if it matters at all what is believed as long as something is believed.
But he is arguing for the truth of monotheism; it certainly matters. Do you think he's pushing indifferentism? Why?
If and when he treads down that path he will likely become an atheist himself.
But does atheistic belief really have any additional explanatory power that monotheistic belief lacks? How do his critiques of the evidentialist position and/or the geneticist position fail? Or does he miss something else?
"Even we godless antimetaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith thousands of years old, the Christian faith, which was also the faith of Plato: that God is the truth, that truth is divine."
-Freddy Nietzsche, The Gay Science
Actually I wasn't making a reference to polytheism. Sadly, even the present day monotheists form a polytheistic collective. Claiming that there is only one god isn't convincing when the version each sect adores bears little resemblance to and is perpetually at odds with the adherents of the competing monotheistic cults.
"Not quite sure what you mean, here." -- Dumb Ox
I was referring to Plantinga's remarks to the effect that the intellectual capacity of believers is inherently deficient in the opinion of the atheological evidentialists. Plantinga objects to this characterization of the believer but offers only the weakest refutation possible -- the believer's world view and his beliefs are not inconsistent -- some nonsense about wants and attainments.
"But he is arguing for the truth of monotheism; it certainly matters. Do you think he's pushing indifferentism? Why?" -- Dumb Ox
He makes no case for the truth of monotheism in this article. He is practicing apologetics. Monotheism itself is trivial and largely meaningless without a detailed description of the deity. When believers attempt to describe their particular god they make innumerable mistakes and are justly ridiculed for holding faith in contradiction of knowledge and logic. Plantinga thinks this is permissible as long as the believers are consistent. He is wrong of course for no other reason than this -- being consistent and being wrong are not mutually exclusive.
"But does atheistic belief really have any additional explanatory power that monotheistic belief lacks? How do his critiques of the evidentialist position and/or the geneticist position fail? Or does he miss something else?" -- Dumb Ox
Atheism as generally expressed is not a belief. It is more often the simple knowledge that all known religions are patently false in their primary assertions about the nature of reality. True atheism, of the sort that states emphatically that there is no god, is rare because it is meaningless and has a simple detestable (to most "atheists") quality -- it is always and only a belief.
"...that God is the truth, that truth is divine." -- Nietzsche
If only people honored the truth itself instead of "truths." The tendency to adopt false beliefs would be tempered by the desire to avoid the risk of violating the standard of truth.
Actually I wasn't making a reference to polytheism. Sadly, even the present day monotheists form a polytheistic collective. Claiming that there is only one god isn't convincing when the version each sect adores bears little resemblance to and is perpetually at odds with the adherents of the competing monotheistic cults.
"Not quite sure what you mean, here." -- Dumb Ox
I was referring to Plantinga's remarks to the effect that the intellectual capacity of believers is inherently deficient in the opinion of the atheological evidentialists. Plantinga objects to this characterization of the believer but offers only the weakest refutation possible -- the believer's world view and his beliefs are not inconsistent -- some nonsense about wants and attainments.
"But he is arguing for the truth of monotheism; it certainly matters. Do you think he's pushing indifferentism? Why?" -- Dumb Ox
He makes no case for the truth of monotheism in this article. He is practicing apologetics. Monotheism itself is trivial and largely meaningless without a detailed description of the deity. When believers attempt to describe their particular god they make innumerable mistakes and are justly ridiculed for holding faith in contradiction of knowledge and logic. Plantinga thinks this is permissible as long as the believers are consistent. He is wrong of course for no other reason than this -- being consistent and being wrong are not mutually exclusive.
"But does atheistic belief really have any additional explanatory power that monotheistic belief lacks? How do his critiques of the evidentialist position and/or the geneticist position fail? Or does he miss something else?" -- Dumb Ox
Atheism as generally expressed is not a belief. It is more often the simple knowledge that all known religions are patently false in their primary assertions about the nature of reality. True atheism, of the sort that states emphatically that there is no god, is rare because it is meaningless and has a simple detestable (to most "atheists") quality -- it is always and only a belief.
"...that God is the truth, that truth is divine." -- Nietzsche
If only people honored the truth itself instead of "truths." The tendency to adopt false beliefs would be tempered by the desire to avoid the risk of violating the standard of truth.