God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God

by Alvin Plantinga

Acceptable condition.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Christianity, Christian, Nonfiction, Academic

288 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1968

About the author

He is an American analytic philosopher, the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame and the inaugural holder of the Jellema Chair in Philosophy at Calvin College.

Plantinga is widely known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics and Christian apologetics.

He has delivered the Gifford Lectures three times and was described by TIME magazine as "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God"

Plantinga is the current winner of the Templeton Prize.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

And so begins Plantinga's project. Plantinga evaluates the issue of whether we are rationally *justified* in believing in God. In doing so, he considers the natural theologian's arsenal, the atheologian's response, and whether belief in God can be salvaged from the analogy of other minds.

Natural Theology

In considering the Cosmological, Ontological, and Teleological arguments, Plantinga points out that most criticisms of these arguments do not obtain, but still, at the end of the day, the natural theologian is not in a better position. Admittedly, this section is dizzying. The ontological argument comprised two chapters (though we did get a fine survey of the then-current literature).

Various Atheologica

Plantinga explores the atheologian's criticisms of theism: the problem of evil (PE), the free will(FV) defense, and verificationism (Vf). With regard to PE, Plantinga notes if the atheologian's premises are correct, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. There is no logical contradiction between the classical theistic view of God and the existence of evil. The atheologian needs to add the following premise:

(a) An all-powerful, all-loving God is *morally obligated* to create a world where persons freely choose the good at all times.

But introducing moral considerations is off-limits for the atheologian at this time. In any case, the atheologian's criticism only speaks of what kind of God exists, not that he doesn't exist.

Plantinga's FW defense is the best chapter in the book. Whether we hold to free will or not is true, Plantinga argues that it is logically coherent and thus serves to defeat the atheologian's defeater. The atheologian wants the following premise:

(b) God could create a world where the state of affairs obtain where a person P freely chooses the good at all times.

As Plantinga notes, this is hard to square with any definition of freedom. Further, just because God is omnipotent does not mean that he can create any state of affairs (e.g., God cannot create the state of affairs that is not created by God!) Further, Plantinga gives a nice discussion of what is a human person:

(c) x is a possible person = def. x is a consistent set of H properties such that for every H property P, either P or P (complement) is a member of x (Plantinga 141).

And if it is false that God can instantiate any possible state of affairs he chooses, then it is false that he can create any person he chooses. Therefore, (b) is no threat to theism.

God and Other Minds

This last section was confusing. Plantinga argued that the other minds analogy has drawbacks but then suggests something like it to *justify* belief in God.

Evaluation and Limitations

This book was one of Plantinga's earlier projects. Notice that I have been using the word "justify" in terms of evaluating belief in God. By the time of Warrant and Proper Function, Plantinga has rejected this line of thought. Justification is a stricter criterion of rationality. It suggests deontological duty and if Plantinga wants to speak of theistic belief as *justified* on the basis of other minds analogy, then his project certainly falls short. But this is no longer Plantinga's position.

The book has more historical value than apologetic value.

[Russell Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The real force of Plantinga's thesis does not hit home until the final few pages - the rest of the book is just for "setting up the punch line", which is, to wit, if one has enough faith to believe in other minds and an external world, then one has more than enough faith to believe in a transcendent or universal mind. My take-away from this book: "If naive realism is metaphysical baking powder, then atheism is just half-baked solipsism." "God and Other Minds" represents the first truly novel and exciting thinking within the field of Christian apologetics of the last 800 years, up until the time of this book's publication in 1967. This is a very strong sentiment, but I am far from alone here.

[Steven Dunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though this was before Plantinga's reevaluation of natural theology, the book has interesting merit throughout defense (though he rejects it) of the Ontological Argument from certain critics. I found his critique of Ayer to be quite interesting, and his critique of Aquinas to be quite poor.

[Rachael · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this debate Plantinga, a Christian philosopher, and Tooley, an atheist philosopher debated about the rationality of belief in God. Plantinga presented his usual Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism as well as some extra material involving the nature of consciousness. Tooley analyzed some conceptual atheological arugments and focused his attention on an evidential argument against evil using some sophisticated inductive probabilitistic calculations. I think they both did a sufficient job of defusing each other's arguments. Plantinga argued that if a Christian already has a reason to think that God exists then that changes Tooley's probabilistic calculations because there is a reason to think that right making properties are going to be involved that could greatly outweigh any relevant wrong making ones. Tooley in turn comes up with an account of consciousness, which I agree with Plantinga doesn't really seem to move from 'quasi beliefs' to full on qualia except by announcement but I thought Plantinga's treatment and advancement of Leibnez's argument in this context biting off more than could be chewed given all else that had to be discussed. His treatment of the issue seemed thin beyond appealing to intuition that mechanical stuff shouldn't be able to give rise to thoughts and the like. One observation I particularly enjoyed from Plantinga is that when Tooley challenged the notion that proper function according to design could appropriately deal with terms like sanity or health (I agree with him here) that that entails a normativity which doesn't fit neatly into a type of naturalism. Nevertheless with this caveat in mind I think Tooley's overall point is correct- that health, sanity etc must be judged according to a standard which is not designed or set by some agent.

[Jacob O'connor]

My 6yo niece visited last weekend. She read a children's book to me. She did a great job, but every once in a while she got stuck on a word. She was mentally exhausted by the end.

Later that night, I opened God and Other Minds. I struggled with the concepts, and when I put it down I was exhausted. Wish I could encourage my niece that it gets easier. Sigh.

This was my least favorite Plantinga book. It has three parts. In the first he evaluates classical arguments for God's existence, and he finds them lacking. In part two, he looks at the better athiest arguments, and he finds them likewise lacking. The meat comes at the end. He defends his "Analogical" argument, and then (barely) shows how it justifies belief in God.

It was a lot of work for a small payoff.

To save you the effort, I'll briefly sum up his analogical argument. Note, this is not a defense or even an outline. For that you'll have to read the book.

Plantinga says we're justified in believing in other minds based on how they relate to our self-knowledge. For instance, we recognize certain behaviors in ourselves that accompany pain. If my stomach hurts, I might grimace, clutch my belly, and double over. By analogy, if I see those behaviors in others, it stands to reason they're in pain. Plantinga then loops around to his critique of the teleological argument. He sees similarities. He transfers the justification in belief in other minds to the cosmic mind of God. I'm a little fuzzy here, and Plantinga doesn't spend much ink developing it. Perhaps the correlation with the teleological argument is this. If we see certain design elements and conclude a designer, then if we see certain mind elements, we are justified in concluding a Mind.

Ps. I recently posted a video by the late Frank Pastore that helped a couple coins drop.

[Joel McDaniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of Plantinga's first books. It is foundational to his entire system of epistemology and is a must read for any christian philosopher. He is a genius, pure and simple.

In the book he draws an analogous relationship between the argument for the existence of God and the arguments for the existence of other minds. He shows that both fail at the same points, but that most people take the existence to be absolutely warranted, while others doubt the existence of God when given the same argument. It is brilliantly written and shows Plantinga's strong grasp of logic, as well as his heart for God and his unwavering defense of the christian faith.

[Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alvin Plantinga has revolutionized analytical philosophy by making belief in God a reasonable position again in that sphere. This book lays out the cores of his arguments and is much referenced, both by supports and those who attempt to refute his positions.
A much more accessible introduction to Plantiga's thought is The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader edited by James Sennett.

[Keith Karr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Apologetics can both attempt to convince the skeptical and bolster the faith of the doubtful. God and Other Minds appears to fall primarily in the latter category. However, at times the books argument appears to be undermining the Christian traditional altogether. For Plantinga's argument, his objective and critical examination of many of the traditional arguments for theism strengthens his otherwise tenuous conclusion. Plantinga's observation of the faults of the classical arguments is unsurprising, as they have been well-documented. Faulting the cosmological or the teleological argument is almost expected, as the worldview that supported such attempts to justify theistic belief have collapsed. The support of the ontological argument in their place, however, is unexpected. Long considered the weakest classical argument, the ontological argument has been criticized from its inception. Despite the criticism, the argument has proven to be compelling enough that many have attempted to resurrect and reformulate Anselm's meditation.

Plantinga's argument, while ontological in mode, has little else that would connect with Anselm's original argument. On the surface, the basic argument from the acceptance of oneself as a thinking, feeling being, to the acceptance of others possessing the same attributes is easy to accept by any but the most stubborn solipsist. Embracing other rational being by extending one's own existence to others. The difficulty lies in extending this same concession to a Divine being.

The one standout feature of Plantinga's argument throughout the book is his fair and even-handed rejection of faulty arguments. Whether from theist, or non-theists, a bad argument is is recognized and dismantled. Considering the author's eminence as an analytic philosopher, his analysis is clear and mostly free from technical language or symbolic presentation. The places were symbolic logic is present is generally reinforced by a clear discussion in prose. While Plantinga's reformulation of the ontological argument is compelling, his fair-minded objectivity prevails, and he dismantles his own argument. At the end, while a rational basis can be provided for faith; a good argument alone cannot provide a foundation of faith. While the systematic dismantling of well-known and novel arguments is disheartening, Plantinga's continued commitment to a faith for which he cannot provide an air-tight defense offers hope for those whose intellect is a mere fraction of his. Faith requires a rational basis, but reason alone cannot produce faith.

[David Fairbairn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 1967, this book was arguably THE turning point which started the renaissance of 20th century Christian analytic philosophy. Alvin Plantinga is brilliant (in fact, I wouldn’t be exaggerating if I said he’s probably the greatest living philosopher), and his examinations of the arguments of natural theology are razor-sharp. He scrutinizes, builds up and tears down his opponents (and his own) arguments with a sort of obsessive madness. The depth of his analysis is exhaustive, and it’s fascinating to watch his train of thought as he lingers on one subject for several pages, only to reveal its flaws and abandon it abruptly. He constructs and demolishes countless sub-arguments, all with a very dry and subtle humour (one of his counter-examples involves the electrical wiring in his Chevrolet), all while leaving the reader’s head spinning with his near-supernatural logical abilities.

However I gave it only 4 stars due to a few factors:

1. It’s a bit light on actual epistemology:
Plantinga is famous for his development of religious epistemology during the 80s and 90s. As this book predates these works it is strange to see him without his typical analysis of justification and warrant. The book is largely focused on analyzing the analogical position regarding other human minds.

2. It’s an extremely dense, academic book that may take multiple reads to comprehend.

The author goes into incredible depth (for example he spends several pages analyzing what the word “about” means), and the philosophy is of a relatively dry, analytic style (“P entails Q iff the conjunction of P with the denial of Q is necessarily false”)


3. Some of the issues being discussed are obsolete or have been replaced by better or more sophisticated notions.

Despite these three knocks, the book stands as a high-point of 20th century philosophy and I feel it has really influenced by own thinking.

I repeat - this is NOT a popular-level book. If you are looking for a book on apologetics, or expecting something like “Where the conflict really lies”, you ought to look elsewhere.

[Luke · Rating 2 out of 5]

far and away the worst philosophical prose i have ever read. while plantinga is clearly a powerful and intelligent philosopher the organisation of this book is absolutely dreadful: numbered propositions piled upon one another ad nauseam, arguments and amended arguments that are so similar to one another that you can never tell what the hell he's getting at, and worse of all his central thesis is left to the last two pages of the book with no further discussion. really disappointing

[Robert · Rating 1 out of 5]

A turgid, pedantic attempt to show that grounds for belief in the existence of G-d, which rely on indirect arguments rather than direct observation, is no more controversial than believing that other people have minds just as we do.

Unconvincing and dry — a disappointing contribution by a well-regarded philosopher.

[Melissa]

History philosophy

[Skylar · Rating 4 out of 5]

great perspective on different presuppositions between Christian and other Philosophers.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some might want to try "God, Freedom and Evil", the more layman-oriented analogue to this one. But this one's damned good.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

the title says it all.

[Joshua Smart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wish I could make this 4.5.