• Warranted Christian Belief (2000)
• Warrant and Proper Function (1993)
• Warrant: the Current Debate (1993)
• Does God Have a Nature? (1980)
• God, Freedom & Evil (1974)
• The Nature of Necessity (1974)
• God and Other Minds (1967)
He is famous for his Reformed Epistemology in which he claims that belief in God is warranted or justified without any evidence. In other words, it is just as properly basic for man to believe in God as it is for man to believe in other minds or in the reality of the past (i.e., memories). He argues that this belief in God is a result of the sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine) which is found in each man (apparently based on Romans 1:19-21).
Although he is extremely erudite and his tomes demonstrate the highest of scholarship, when you actually "boil down" what he is saying, it comes down to: Belief in God just seems right (based on the reliabilist theory of knowledge).
See the first few minutes of the following video clip:
While technically Reformed Epistemology would allow for the basic belief in God to be defeated if the right evidence surfaced, practically speaking, it doesn't appear that Plantinga would really give up his belief. He writes:
...it is possible, at any rate in the broadly logical sense, that just by following ordinary historical reason, using the methods of historical investigation endorsed or enjoined by the deliverances of reason, someone should find powerful evidence against central elements of the Christian faith; if this happened, Christians would face a genuine faith-reason clash. A series of letters could be discovered, letters circulated among Peter, James, John, and Paul, in which the necessity for the hoax and the means of its perpetration are carefully and seriously discussed; these letters might direct workers to archaeological sites in which still more material of the same sort is discovered . . . . The Christian faith is a historical faith, in the sense that it essentially depends upon what did in fact happen: "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile" (I Corinthians 15:17). It could certainly happen that by the exercise of reason we come up with powerful evidence against something we take or took to be a deliverance of faith. It is conceivable that the assured results of HBC [Historical Biblical Criticism] should include such evidence. Then Christians would have a problem, a sort of conflict between faith and reason.So, it seems that he doesn't think it even remotely possible that some defeater could surface but in the unlikely event that it did, he doesn't know what he would do. I predict he would continue to hold on to his belief and find a way to explain the new evidence to agree with his faith.
However, nothing at all like this has emerged from HBC, whether Troeltschian or non-Troletschian; indeed, there is little of any kind that can be considered "assured results," if only because of the wide ranging disagreement among those who practice HBC. We don't have anything like assured results (or even reasonably well-attested results) that conflict with traditional Christian belief in such a way that belief of that sort can continue to be accepted only at considerable cost; nothing at all like this has happened. What would be the appropriate response if it "did" happen or, rather, if I came to be convinced that it had happened? Would I have to give up Christian faith, or else give up the life of the mind? What would be the appropriate response (emphasis mine)? Well, what would be the appropriate response if I came to be convinced that someone had given a wholly rigorous, ineluctable disproof of the existence of God, perhaps something along the lines of J. N. Findlay's alleged ontological disproof? Or what if, with Reid's Hume, I come to think that my cognitive faculties are probably not reliable, and go on to note that I form this very belief on the basis of the very faculties whose reliability this belief impugns? If I did, what would or should I do--stop thinking about these things, immerse myself in practical activity (maybe play a lot of backgammon, maybe volunteer to help build houses for Habitat for Humanity), commit intellectual suicide? I don't know the answer to any of these questions (emphasis mine). There is no need to borrow trouble, however; we can think about crossing these bridges when (more likely, if) we come to them (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 420-421).
Plantinga also makes another very interesting admission. He acknowledges that his epistemology could be applied to confer warrant for other religions such as Islam (Warranted Christian Belief, p. 350 and Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, eds. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, p. 78). So, his argument for a properly basic belief in God does not uniquely apply to Christianity.
He also uses a somewhat strange argument to counter the logical problem of natural evil. He says that natural evil could be caused by demons (God, Freedom, and Evil, p. 58). While he offers this only as a potential solution to defeat the logical problem of evil, nevertheless, it sounds more like a Medieval philosopher than it does one of the brightest lights of the modern era in philosophy.
So, while many today are enamored with Reformed Epistemology and the philosophy of Alvin Plantinga, I am not one of them.
For some excellent criticisms of Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology see, Matt McCormick, Finding God in My Own Mind
Jaco W. Gericke, FUNDAMENTALISM ON STILTS: A RESPONSE TO ALVIN PLANTINGA’S REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGY
Erik Baldwin, Could the Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model Defeat Basic Christian Belief ? (Philosophia Christi, Vol.8, No. 2 2006)
For a layman's summary of Baldwin's paper see the series on Common Sense Atheism
Evan Fales interview on Common Sense Atheism
I suspect a lot of people are enamored with the Reformed faith because it allows them to hold a highly intellectual and conservative view of Scripture, along with a staunch piety, without the stigma of backwoods fundamentalism.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteYep you are right. It is fundamentalism nonetheless though. I like the way Jaco W. Gericke characterizes it: Fundamentalism on Stilts.
I've noticed there's a lot of what basically amount to rear-guard theology springing up in the non-Fundamentalist areas of Christianity. It seems there's been a realization of the backlash against the modern-type apologetics that rely on "proving" god to the non-believers. It seems as if they still want to be able to "prove" god, but they don't want to have to take on the negative aspects wherein the proof fails or proving the negative is possible.
ReplyDeleteI remember Rob Bell (one of the lead voices of the Emergent Church movement) saying that he doesn't believe that it actually matters if Jesus died or not, because it's something we need and its the idea that matters. Yet, as I recall, he was also pretty sure that Jesus did live and die as the Gospels say. It's like, "Oh, so you want to have it both ways, then?"
On some level, though, it seems like that's idea's an extension of Paul Tillich. Sadly, though, that's an association I made in college and now I can't remember why. But Tillich had his whole idea of ultimate concern and how the Christ story specifically proved it was worthwhile because it contained an actual historical event. It's not too much of a stretch to turn that around and say that it's still a worthwhile idea without the bit about the impact on history, though.
In college I briefly attended a church where the pastor was spectacularly fundamentalist and one Sunday he went off on the Emergent Church in general and Rob Bell in specific. It was angry, scared, and not at all pretty. That was the last Sunday I went to that church.
Steve: I suspect a lot of people are enamored with the Reformed faith because it allows them to hold a highly intellectual and conservative view of Scripture, along with a staunch piety, without the stigma of backwoods fundamentalism.
I remember the self-styled intellectuals in my church group wandering around acting like arguing Calvinism and Arminianism made them brilliant scholars. It was especially funny when they'd declare that the best thing to do was combine them.
Yeah, Calvinians.
ReplyDeleteCalvinism plus Arminianism may equal Universalism. The power of God plus the will of God equal salvation for all...yadda yadda.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I am agnostic, but I don't have a huge problem with the Reformed Epistemology, at least theoretically. I feel it is within my epistemological rights to believe that life is meaningful, and that there may be a meaning that is beyond my ability to comprehend. This claim may not be falsifiable, but I can test the effects of it. And I think they are positive.
This seems similar to a Reformed Epistemology - but the difference is that RE seems to extend this to cover super specific historical and scientific claims - like that Jesus physically rose from the dead. This seems a stretch. That said, making spiritual questions basic seems appropriate, but "spiritual" often morphs into physical claims.
"I remember the self-styled intellectuals in my church group wandering around acting like arguing Calvinism and Arminianism made them brilliant scholars."
ReplyDeleteBingo. I was infected with that conceit myself. When I read Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination," I thought I had crossed the threshold into advanced scholarship. In reality, I barely had the religious equivalent of Jethro Bodine's sixth-grade education. I just didn't know it.
Now when I go to Calvinist blogs where people speak so solemnly about their distinctions with the rest of unenlightened Christendom, it almost makes we laugh. If it weren't so disgusting, I would.
Steven: Calvinism plus Arminianism may equal Universalism. The power of God plus the will of God equal salvation for all...yadda yadda.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that they managed to decide to combine the two, but still ultimately hold that it only applied to their own, narrow, sectarian view of Christianity. It was, like, "God only takes the Elect, but anyone can join the Elect as long as they do it in this specific way." And then they acted like it was an utterly brilliant construct.
I never really engaged in such things, as I was largely uninterested or something. I'm not going to say I was above it or unable to understand it. I just had other things on my mind. Looking back I want to bang my head against a wall just remembering it, though.
SteveJ: When I read Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination," I thought I had crossed the threshold into advanced scholarship.
Funny how that happens, eh? I can't remember a specific moment like that, but I do remember reading stuff about existentialist thought and realizing there was a lot more to the world.
The big one, though, was that when the Emergent Church movement was starting to go mainstream I was all about the heady postmodern "intellectualism." Then I read Martin Buber and Paul Tillich and realized that Brian McLaren and Rob Bell were intellectual poseurs. That was fun.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou always make me laugh. I didn't realize Jethro was a theologian. I knew he was a brain surgeon and a spy but I missed the episode where he was a Calvinist theologian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note: Geds, I'd be interested in finding out how Tillich and Buber refute the whole postmodern phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteMy discussions with postmoderns have been frustrating to the core. Every question or argument of mine dies the death of a thousand qualifications. For example, I ask, "Do you believe Christianity is true?" and the retort is, "What do you mean by 'true'?"
It's like trying to take hold of fog. We never really get to the bottom of anything. On top of it, I come off as hopelessly mired in the past -- a relic of yesterday's thinking who just doesn't "get it."
Ha ha ha! great stuff.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the frustration with post-modern ideas, even though I am somewhat sympathetic. I think it's a matter of finding the right level of "zoom" for a discussion. If we're arguing about whether the cup is on the table or not, then let's use our eyes and keep it at this level of "zoom". Let's not zoom way out (or in) and ask what it means for objects to be "on" each other considering the spaces between subatomic particles or whether the outer world is an illusion or not.
Those are fun and important questions, but it's the wrong context.
I hope I never call 911 and get a postmodern dispatcher. "What do you mean by ... 'emergency'?"
ReplyDelete