So I have been busy lately trying to figure out college, SAT etc. I have also been planning on moving from the US this time next year. As to the current economic situation in the U.S I am afraid the country might get worse if the goverment does not take the appropiate actions. But anywho lets discuss the final thinker Alvin plantinga.
Alvin calls this the reformed epistemology model. This is how the model works (keep in mind I will try to break it down to as simple as I can put it) . Alvin plantinga argues that belief in God is wholly warranted without evidence.. He objects to the evidentialist criteria that a belief to be justified must either have some evidence or be foundational to knowledge. Since God is not foundational to knowledge this belief must require evidence. But Plantinga asks why can't God be part of this foundation so that no evidence is needed? But only properly basic beliefs can be part of the foundation. What is a properly basic belief? In simple terms are beliefs we hold without any evidence and are completely reasonable to believe. For example self evident and incorrigible beliefs are properly baisc. An example of a self evident belief would be the sum of two square of the two sides of the right triangle must equal the square of the hypotenuse. This is self evident. An incorrigible belief would be I feel pain. There is no evidence I can show that I feel pain but it is correct because I am the one who can feel my pain. So this renders it properly basic. Now this is correct that these two would be properly basic. But Plantinga argues how do we know if these are the two only properly basic beliefs? In other words are these two types of criteria only qualify to be properly basic? If it is than we are unreasonable in believing most of the things in our lives. For example take the belief that the world wasnt created five minutes with a apperance of age. Obviously this belief isnt self evident or incorrigible so it must require some justification that is to say evidence. But obviously it is reasonable to think that the world has existed for a while. So something must be wrong with this criteria. Plantinga argues that belief in God can be properly basic. Man has innate capacity to apprehend the existence of God given the right circumstances. This is called sensus divintatis. Let me explain. God has design us that we form belief in him naturally. This is how it works. When our cognitive faculties (belief forming mechanisms) are in their appropiate circumstances one can form a properly basic belief in God. One a person sees God handiwork in nature or feels some guilt in sinning etc. He naturally forms a belief in God because his belief forming mechanism were in the appropiate circumstances. To give a analogy lets say you see a tree. Your in the right place to see the tree and your belief forming mechanisms form a belief in the tree existence. The existence of the tree is not inferred but it is properly basic. Your in the appropiate circumstances so you naturally form a belief in the tree's existence. So this is the same way man forms belief in God the same way man forms a belief through perception.
So I guess you can call it being in the right place at the right time. Does this mean anyone can form a belief in anything and be justified? No. If someone claims to have a belief in some deity his cognitive falculties had to be in the appropiate circumstances. If the belief in question was in the inappropiate circumstances than the belief is unjustified. Than the evidentialist cannot just include only inffered propositons but also properly basic propositions. Plantinga also wants us to note that properly basic beliefs cannot be doubted. That is to say in the presence of some defeater the belief can be abandoned. For example lets say the Christian who faces the problem of evil. Now he has a defeater for his belief in God. But Plantinga argues that sometimes the belief has so much warrant it destroys all defeaters to it. To explain this let me give a scenario. Let's say a criminal has been presented evidence that shows he committed the crime. But he knows he didn't it. Should he abandon his belief in his innocence to accept the evidence? No he is justified in believing in his innocence. Even though he has no evidence to prove this. So Plantinga argues that if the belief in question can produced sufficient warrant we can know God exists. So this is how it drops to in the end. Plantinga believes that if your cognitive faculties are functioning properly in the appropiate circumstance in the enviroment God designed them to you can know God exists. What does it mean to function properly? Well in order to be functioning properly they have to be in the appropiate circumstances. And in order to be in the appropiate circumstances you have to be in an appropiate enviroment to form such a belief. And if one holds this belief firmly enough one can produce sufficient warrant that it constitutes knowledge. So that is how we know God exists.
But what about Christian beliefs? Plantinga argues that the Holy Spirit is too a cognitive faculty so it adheres to the criteria above. When a person is confronted with the truth of the Gospel. He will be in the appropiate circumstance in the enviroment God has designed and if his cognitve faculties are functioning properly he will naturally form a belief in Christianity which thus if he holds it firmly he can know Christianity is true.
Alvin calls this the reformed epistemology model. This is how the model works (keep in mind I will try to break it down to as simple as I can put it) . Alvin plantinga argues that belief in God is wholly warranted without evidence.. He objects to the evidentialist criteria that a belief to be justified must either have some evidence or be foundational to knowledge. Since God is not foundational to knowledge this belief must require evidence. But Plantinga asks why can't God be part of this foundation so that no evidence is needed? But only properly basic beliefs can be part of the foundation. What is a properly basic belief? In simple terms are beliefs we hold without any evidence and are completely reasonable to believe. For example self evident and incorrigible beliefs are properly baisc. An example of a self evident belief would be the sum of two square of the two sides of the right triangle must equal the square of the hypotenuse. This is self evident. An incorrigible belief would be I feel pain. There is no evidence I can show that I feel pain but it is correct because I am the one who can feel my pain. So this renders it properly basic. Now this is correct that these two would be properly basic. But Plantinga argues how do we know if these are the two only properly basic beliefs? In other words are these two types of criteria only qualify to be properly basic? If it is than we are unreasonable in believing most of the things in our lives. For example take the belief that the world wasnt created five minutes with a apperance of age. Obviously this belief isnt self evident or incorrigible so it must require some justification that is to say evidence. But obviously it is reasonable to think that the world has existed for a while. So something must be wrong with this criteria. Plantinga argues that belief in God can be properly basic. Man has innate capacity to apprehend the existence of God given the right circumstances. This is called sensus divintatis. Let me explain. God has design us that we form belief in him naturally. This is how it works. When our cognitive faculties (belief forming mechanisms) are in their appropiate circumstances one can form a properly basic belief in God. One a person sees God handiwork in nature or feels some guilt in sinning etc. He naturally forms a belief in God because his belief forming mechanism were in the appropiate circumstances. To give a analogy lets say you see a tree. Your in the right place to see the tree and your belief forming mechanisms form a belief in the tree existence. The existence of the tree is not inferred but it is properly basic. Your in the appropiate circumstances so you naturally form a belief in the tree's existence. So this is the same way man forms belief in God the same way man forms a belief through perception.
So I guess you can call it being in the right place at the right time. Does this mean anyone can form a belief in anything and be justified? No. If someone claims to have a belief in some deity his cognitive falculties had to be in the appropiate circumstances. If the belief in question was in the inappropiate circumstances than the belief is unjustified. Than the evidentialist cannot just include only inffered propositons but also properly basic propositions. Plantinga also wants us to note that properly basic beliefs cannot be doubted. That is to say in the presence of some defeater the belief can be abandoned. For example lets say the Christian who faces the problem of evil. Now he has a defeater for his belief in God. But Plantinga argues that sometimes the belief has so much warrant it destroys all defeaters to it. To explain this let me give a scenario. Let's say a criminal has been presented evidence that shows he committed the crime. But he knows he didn't it. Should he abandon his belief in his innocence to accept the evidence? No he is justified in believing in his innocence. Even though he has no evidence to prove this. So Plantinga argues that if the belief in question can produced sufficient warrant we can know God exists. So this is how it drops to in the end. Plantinga believes that if your cognitive faculties are functioning properly in the appropiate circumstance in the enviroment God designed them to you can know God exists. What does it mean to function properly? Well in order to be functioning properly they have to be in the appropiate circumstances. And in order to be in the appropiate circumstances you have to be in an appropiate enviroment to form such a belief. And if one holds this belief firmly enough one can produce sufficient warrant that it constitutes knowledge. So that is how we know God exists.
But what about Christian beliefs? Plantinga argues that the Holy Spirit is too a cognitive faculty so it adheres to the criteria above. When a person is confronted with the truth of the Gospel. He will be in the appropiate circumstance in the enviroment God has designed and if his cognitve faculties are functioning properly he will naturally form a belief in Christianity which thus if he holds it firmly he can know Christianity is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment