M A I N Q U E S T I O N - I S A R G U M E N T I R R E L E V A N T T O B E L I E F ?

Is religious belief properly basic?

Plantinga and Reformed Epistemology

�  This argument involves a rejection of the claims of classical foundationalism - which claims that foundational/basic beliefs must be self-evident or infallible.

�  Plantinga suggests that religious belief can be considered a basic belief. Belief in God can be basic for a person.

�  Said simply- A person can be rationally justified in believing in God even if he has no good arguments (of the theological kind) for the existence of God.

�  Plantinga goes so far as to say that a person can know God.

The grounds for religious belief

�  Plantinga says that belief in God is basic; but that it has grounds and can be justified.

�  He argues this point using several examples: -  A sense of wonderment about the universe can give

rise to the belief that it was created by God -  - Reading the Bible can lead some to believe that God

is speaking to them personally -  - A feeling of guilt (for doing the wrong thing) can

give rise to the belief that God disapproves of what one has done.

The grounds for religious belief

�  For each of these examples, Plantinga argues that there is a justifying or grounding situation which gives rise to belief.

�  In each case the justified belief is not directly that God exists. The belief which is considered basic is that the universe was created by God and so on.

�  Plantinga’s suggestion is that religious belief is more to do with beliefs about God, rather than belief in God’s objective existence. However, the latter, entails the former and this poses a philosophical problem.

Is argument irrelevant to religious belief?

�  Simply put- Plantinga says no. Someone who has been brought up to believe in God may experience pain and suffering and as a result question their basic belief in God. A reflection on the problem of evil and suffering is entirely relevant to whether this person upholds their belief or rejects it.

�  Similarly, someone who does not believe in God might, through rational argument, come to accept that there is a God.

�  Essentially, Plantinga argues that one does not have to have arguments in order to believe in God.

Main strength of the argument

�  Plantinga is correct in saying that we often believe in things which cannot be easily proven. He argues that, as far as proof goes, religious belief is no better nor worse off than other forms of beliefs that we accept without evidence.

Main criticism of the argument

The Great Pumpkin Objection -  However; there could be any number of beliefs that

someone might claim as basic- Santa, voodoo, supernatural beings, the great pumpkin that returns every Halloween. Could these also be considered basic?

-  Plantinga says that religious belief is different because it has grounds, but whilst he may think that belief in something like the ‘great pumpkin’ is not properly basic, someone else might.

-  Beliefs in witches or many gods, could be basic for a whole culture- surely by his own standards such beliefs should be considered rational?

Continued

�  It is hard to be entirely convinced by Plantinga’s argument, even though it is generally right to say that one can know something even if one cannot prove it to others.

�  The argument should rather emphasize the role that belief plays in deepening one’s faith and that it is when it does that we might be able to say that someone knows God.