I just posted my first post in the Knowledge of God reading group over at Prosblogion. I’ll post the first part here. To read the entire post over at Prosblogion click here.

A Puzzle for the Proper Function Argument Against Naturalism

In chapter one of Knowledge of God, Alvin Plantinga argues that naturalism cannot account for proper function. According to Plantinga, proper function requires intelligent design.

The Proper Function Argument Against Naturalism

1. If naturalism is true, then there is no proper function (with respect to human beings).
2. There is proper function (with respect to human beings).
3. Therefore, naturalism is not true.
   (Note: I’m oversimplifying this. I’m translating all of Plantinga’s talk about “naturalism can’t accomodate proper function” to “there is no proper function” – this oversimplification has no bearing on the puzzle I want to raise.)

I’m interested in the assumption that motivates (1). The thesis is roughly:

Proper Function Requires Design Thesis
(P) If S functions properly, then S has an intelligent designer.

(P) is incompatible with what seems to be perfectly acceptable talk about God. It seems to make sense to talk about God functioning properly – especially if we’re working with the concept proper function that we all have and use in ordinary life (p. 23).

If God exists, then God functions properly. If God functions properly, then (P) is false – because presumably God (by hypothesis) does not have a designer.

I think the main problem for the argument I have given will be whether or not we can sensibly talk about God functioning properly.

(Read the rest of this post over at Prosblogion)