Logos and Episteme 6 (2):187–199 (2015)

Authors
Erik Krag
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Abstract
Plantinga argues that cases involving ‘fixed’ beliefs refute the coherentist thesis that a belief’s belonging to a coherent set of beliefs suffices for its having justification (warrant). According to Plantinga, a belief cannot be justified if there is a ‘lack of fit’ between it and its subject’s experiences. I defend coherentism by showing that if Plantinga means to claim that any ‘lack of fit’ destroys justification, his argument is obviously false. If he means to claim that significant ‘lack of fit’ destroys justification, his argument suffers a critical lack of support. Either way, Plantinga’s argument fails and coherentism emerges unscathed.
Keywords Alvin Plantinga  coherentism  justification   warrant
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 2069-0533
DOI 10.5840/logos-episteme20156211
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Conscious Experience.Fred Dretske - 1993 - Mind 102 (406):263-283.
Warrant and Accidentally True Belief.A. Plantinga - 1997 - Analysis 57 (2):140-145.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Coherentism.Jonathan Kvanvig - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Research 22:299-306.
Plantinga and the Rationality of Theism.Thomas John Burke - 1989 - Dissertation, Michigan State University
Plantinga on Warrant and Religious Belief.B. J. C. Madison - 2004 - Dissertation, King's College London
Warrant and Analysis.Joel Pust - 2000 - Analysis 60 (1):51–57.
Coherentism.Peter Murphy - 2006 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Plantinga's Belief-Cum-Desire Argument Refuted.Stephen Law - 2011 - Religious Studies 47 (2):245-256.
Is Coherentism Coherent?Christoph Jäger - 2007 - Analysis 67 (4):341 - 344.
Does Doxastic Justification Have a Basing Requirement?Paul Silva - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (2):371-387.
``Coherentism: Misconstrual and Misapprehension&Quot.Jonathan L. Kvanvig - 1995 - Southwest Philosophy Review 11 (1):159-169.
The Role of Coherence in Epistemic Justification.T. Shogenji - 2001 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (1):90 – 106.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-01-09

Total views
391 ( #25,038 of 2,497,817 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
42 ( #20,347 of 2,497,817 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes