Tag Archives: Free Will

Angus Menuge explains the ontological argument from reason

Dr. Angus Menuge
Dr. Angus Menuge

Here’s some information about Dr. Menuge:

Dr. Angus Menuge joined Concordia University Wisconsin in 1991. He earned his BA from the University of Warwick, England, and his MA and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he studied philosophy, computer science and psychology. Menuge’s dissertation was on the philosophy of action explanation, and his current research interests include philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and Christian apologetics.

In 2003, Menuge earned a Diploma in Christian Apologetics from the International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism and Human Rights, which meets each July in Strasbourg, France. His thesis, a critique of scientific materialism, went on to become the book Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004).

Menuge has also edited volumes on C. S. Lewis, Christ and culture and the vocation of scientist, and has written several Bible studies. He is currently working with Joel Heck (Concordia Texas) on a collection of essays defining Lutheran education for the 21st century, entitled Learning at the Foot of the Cross (Concordia University Press, forthcoming).

A frequent speaker, Menuge has given presentations on Christianity and culture, science and vocation, philosophy of mind, C. S. Lewis, Intelligent Design and the case against scientific materialism. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

Dr. Menuge presented a paper at the real Evangelical Philosophical Society conference for students and professors of philosophy, and you can download the paper here in Word format. (here’s a PDF version I made)

Here is the introduction to the paper that Dr. Menuge read at the EPS conference:

The argument from reason is really a family of arguments to show that reasoning is incompatible with naturalism. Here, naturalism is understood as the idea that foundationally, there are only physical objects, properties and relations, and anything else reduces to, supervenes on, or emerges from that. For our purposes, one of the most important claims of naturalism is that all causation is passive, automatic, event causation (an earthquake automatically causes a tidal wave; the tidal wave responds passively): there are no agent causes, where something does not happen automatically but only because the agent exerts his active power by choosing to do it. The most famous version of the argument from reason is epistemological: if naturalism were true, we could not be justified in believing it. Today, I want to focus on the ontological argument from reason, which asserts that there cannot be reasoning in a naturalistic world, because reasoning requires libertarian free will, and this in turn requires a unified, enduring self with active power.

The two most promising ways out of this argument are: (1) Compatibilism—even in a deterministic, naturalistic world, humans are capable of free acts of reason if their minds are responsive to rational causes; (2) Libertarian Naturalism—a self with libertarian free will emerges from the brain. I argue that neither of these moves works, and so, unless someone has a better idea, the ontological argument from reason stands.

The paper is 11 pages long, and it is awesome for those of you looking for some good discussion of one of the issues in the area of philosophy of mind. The thing you need to know about Dr. Menuge is that he is quite strong and forceful in his writing and presentation, and to me, that is an excellent thing for a scholar to be. He reminds me of Doug Geivett, Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. Very direct, and very confrontational. You can even read an account of his debate with that radical atheist nutcase P.Z. Myers in 2008 here.

By the way, the epistemological argument from reason (P(R) on N & E is low) is the argument made by the famous Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. I blogged about that argument before here. You need to know BOTH of these arguments. Plantinga also spoke at the EPS apologetics conference, explaining exactly this argument.

Powerpoint slideshow

But there is more than just the paper! At the EPS apologetics conference, which is meant for lay people as well as scholars, he presented this Powerpoint slideshow, (here’s a PDF version I made) . The slides are easier to understand than the paper, but the paper is not too bad.

And here is another article by Dr. Menuge on intelligent design.

William Lane Craig explains why moral choices are impossible on atheism

From his debate with Sam Harris.

Here are a couple more videos you may like:

The moral argument is one of my favorite arguments.

Does God scare people into loving him with the threat of Hell?

This is from The Sparx401 again.

Excerpt:

It’s probably one of the more prominent questions seekers and skeptics alike will ask: What kind of choice is that?! Love me or burn in Hell? This particular question is what we’ll be delving into today. In fact, I’ll be writing a slew of posts on questions pertaining to Hell and Salvation and such.

First, a “sketch”:

Tim bows on one knee and says to Karen, “I love you more than anyone could imagine! You’re so incredibly beautiful! And actually, Karen, I was wondering if you’d be my wife and marry me.”

Taken aback by this, but obviously touched by his feelings, Karen thoughtfully responds, “That’s so sweet of you Tim! Still, I’m going to have to think about it…”

“Oh sure, go right on ahead. I don’t want to force you, else that wouldn’t be a genuine choice,” replies Tim.

“However,” he exclaims, “If you don’t choose to marry me, I’ll send you down into my basement where my crazy cousin Micah will torture you forever”.

“What? That’s totally unfair! What kind of choice is that? Why would you send me down there for?” stammers Karen with shock.

“I’m not sending you down there Karen, you are sending yourself there if you choose not to marry me. It’s still your free choice, after all”.

Such a story is how a good number of skeptics view God’s “provision” of choice vis-à-vis Hell and Salvation. Yet, how accurate is this portrayal given the relevant biblical data and Christian doctrine? My contention? Very inaccurate.

Click here to find out how to respond to this objection.