PLANTINGA
Question: Is Religious Belief Justified/Warranted?
Reformed Epistemologist (Plantinga) says that it can be, without arguments.
Grandma’s Beliefs are Justified: Plantinga (113-125) Plantinga
Clifford: wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence
Russell: not enough evidence for God
Flew: presumption of atheism—onus of proof is on theist!! (this begs Q—Circular)
Plantinga: Why? Why not presumption of theism?
Calvin:
1. Innate universally present disposition to know that God is -- sin suppress
2. arguments don't really work
Jonathan Edwards: Religious Affections:
Aristotle: Proper Function
*The Problem is classical foundationalism: I must have properly justified beliefs to begin
with, and then build on them.
Like Clifford: Evidentialist says that if there is no evidence for God, then it is wrong to
believe, because that would violate the all-things-considered duty
Logical Positivist: intellectual duty requires that assent be given only to things provable
Verification principle: Only those things which can be proven can be accepted as true.
Otherwise, you have no right to do/believe so! (Verification principle was thought to be
self-evident, incorrigible, sensible, properly basic)
A. It is irrational or unreasonable to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence or reasons.
B. There is no evidence, or at rate not sufficient evidence, for the proposition that God exists
C. Therefore, it is unreasonable to believe in God
(B is probably false, but Plantinga wants to focus on A—is it unreasonable to believe
without evidence. He thinks that sometimes it is unreasonable to not believe basic beliefs.)
Plantinga: no duty is neglected
1. 14 year old/ grandma
2. Have evidence or don’t believe? - too simplistic, inhuman, beliefs aren’t like that
Ex: anchor-hold for rappelling/turned off lights
3. Intellectual duties to believe? But I cannot change my beliefs. I see a tree, but you say
I can’t explain why I am justified, so must I try hard to not believe that the tree is there?
MY BELIEFS AREN”T FOR THE MOST PART DIRECTLY WITHIN MY CONTROL
Duty to work my way to a position where I wouldn’t believe unless evidence compelled
me? What kind of awkward slanted view is that?
4. Not duty, but believer is just defective? -- then give sympathy, not censure.
Basic Beliefs
: beliefs I have without evidence
Properly Basic Beliefs: Beliefs I have w/o evidence, but am still within my rights to believe
2 Objections to Taking Belief in God as Basic:
1. Belief in God is groundless, arbitray
1. I see tree 2. I had breakfast 3. That person in angry
Basic designed beliefs: Pain, memory, sense something
Basic beliefs: proper under certain conditions- they are falsifiable (bad memory, poor eyes)
(they have defeaters)
Belief in God is also properly basic, like belief in perceptions. Or it is at least based upon
properly basic beliefs. (I had experience of God, so, He must exist)
God is speaking to me, created all this, disapproves, forgives, should be thanked . . .
Less basic: There are trees, there are persons, the world has existed a long time
More basic: I see a tree, that person is pleased, I had breakfast an hour ago
Objection 2: Doesn’t this mean I can believe whatever I want to? Great pumpkin?
NO: not anything goes!
If I have perceptions of a great pumpkin, then lets talk about it. If there is a huge massive
surge to believe in GP, then lets discuss it. But that’s not a live option.
Induction -- former more basic -- examples help solidify beliefs
Christian vs non-Christian on properly basic
Clifford
All are responsible to universal
criteria of right/wrong belief
Plantinga
Community is responsible to its set of examples.
God gave us natural tendency to see his hand.
Duty to prove
Prove before you believe
Proper function, sanity, health, are basis of good beliefs
Belief first is ok, but remember your Fallibility
Belief is PROVEN
More complicated. Belief has warrant:
1. Derived from properly functioning faculties
2. In the appropriate environment
3. Produced by faculties aimed at true belief
4. Process of faculty is successful
Linda Zagzebski "The Inescapability of Gettier Problems" Phil Quart 1994, 44, 174
"start with a case of justified (or warranted) false belief. Make the element of
justification (warrant) strong enough for knowledge, but make the belief false. . . .
The falsity of th ebelief is therefore due to some element of luck. Now emend the
case by adding another element of luck, only this time an element which makes the
belief true after all. . ." (69)