Plantinga and the Rationality of Theism

Dissertation, Michigan State University (1989)

Abstract
Recently, Alvin Plantinga has put forth the provocative thesis that belief in God might well be "properly basic". That is, given the general epistemological position of foundationalism, he has argued that under certain conditions belief in God could be rational even if no evidence for God existed. This study attempts to demonstrate that Plantinga's claim does not abet the epistemic fortunes of Theism, and then tries to show that what is needed is an epistemological alternative to both foundationalism and coherentism. Given this alternative, it is concluded, belief in God will be neither evidential in the "classical foundationalist" sense nor properly basic in any foundationalist sense. ;It is argued first that the sorts of beliefs which Plantinga's weak foundationalism allows as properly basic are too easily defeasible to function as foundational beliefs, and that a case can be made for limiting proper basicality to beliefs epistemically stronger than those countenanced by weak foundationalism. Second, it is contended that even if belief in God were properly basic in some situations, as such it would too easily degenerate into an evidential belief to be of epistemic value. ;The root problem, it is claimed, is that both foundationalism and its primary rival, coherentism, are inadequate to account for all the types of beliefs which we have. I argue in agreement with Plantinga that "classical foundationalism" is untenable and that coherentism cannot satisfactorily acocunt for epistemic warrant. But the similarities between Plantinga's weak foundationalist schema for justifying what he considers properly basic beliefs and Laurence BonJour's coherentist schema for justifying his "observation beliefs" indicates that such beliefs are neither properly basic nor evidential, but a third type. ;I conclude that an alternative construal of our noetic structure is necessary and attempt to outline such a view. According to this proposal, I claim, belief in God plays a highly theoretical role in our noetic structure. Therefore, its justification requires demonstrating its essential importance within a theoretical framework which is at least as viable as its nontheistic rivals
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 44,340
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Critique of Plantinga's Theological Foundationalism.John Zeis - 1990 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 28 (3):173 - 189.
The Foundationalist Debate and Contemporary Christian Apologetics.John Thomas Meadors - 1993 - Dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Foundationalism.Daniel Howard-Snyder - 2012 - In Andrew Cullison (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Epistemology. Continuum. pp. 37.
Can Belief in God Be Confirmed?: MARK S. MCLEOD.Mark S. Mcleod - 1988 - Religious Studies 24 (3):311-323.
The Foundations of Theism: A Reply.Alvin Plantinga - 1986 - Faith and Philosophy 3 (3):313-396.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-04

Total views
0

Recent downloads (6 months)
0

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes

Sign in to use this feature