Category Archives: Culture

Posted on

Summary of Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology

W.K. Clifford once said that “it is wrong always and everywhere to believe something on insufficient evidence.” This is the heart of evidentialsim or theological rationalism. And it is precisely this view that Alvin Plantinga (AP) challenges with his reformed epistemology which develops a model of “warranted Christian belief”. He has two projects: one public and one Christian.

Public Project – Plantinga first distinguishes between de facto objections (aimed at showing the Christian faith to be false) and de jure objections (those aimed at undermining Christian belief even if true). Even though these can be distinguished, AP thinks argues that in the cases of Christian theistic belief there is no de jure objection independent of a de facto objection.

de jure to Theistic belief – According to the evidentialist, even if it is true that God exists, one is unjustified and irrational for believing this apart from evidence. Only beliefs that are properly basic (those that are self-evident or incorrigible) or inferred from properly basic beliefs do not require evidence. But AP wants to ask why belief in God can’t be a properly basic belief? For he sees no good reason to exclude this possibility. First, there are other things we believe without evidence that we seem entirely justified in doing so without appealing to evidence (i.e., the world is older than five minutes). Second, what evidence is there that only propositions that are self evident and incorrigible are properly basic? The theory fails its own test. So there is no reason to exclude the possibility of belief in God being Properly Basic.

AP argues that Christians are not only within their epistemic rights (Justification) in believing God exists, but also that they can know (Warranted) apart from evidence. The key to Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology is warrant, “the property which turns mere true belief into knowledge when possessed in sufficient degree.” Justification, on AP’s view, is fairly easy to come by—it’s warrant that is important for knowledge. AP appropriates Calvin’s Sensus Divinitatis (or sense of the divine) in order describe the appropriate circumstances / faculty that form the belief that God exists in people. It is within this context that he offers his four criteria for warrant: 1) the cognitive faculties of the person are functioning properly 2) the cognitive environment is appropriate 3) the purpose of the epistemic faculty is aimed at producing true beliefs. 4) the objective probability of a beliefs being true is high. According to AP then, belief in God is properly basic with respect to warrant if God exists. But then the issue of God’s existence is no longer epistemic, but metaphysical or theological (enter arguments from Natural Theology). There is then no de jure objection to theistic belief.

de jure to Christianity – What about to specifically Christian Theism? AP expands his model to include the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Due to humanity’s fall into sin, there have been disastrous cognitive and affective consequences. So if Christianity is true then belief in it is warranted in the same way mentioned above because belief is produced by the H.S.

Great Pumpkin Objections – the strongest objection to the public project is that it leads to radical relativism. For example, why could Linus’s belief in the Great Pumpkin not be properly basic for him? AP grants that Linus could be justified in his belief, but so what? He is still being lied to—so he possesses no warrant. Moreover, if Christian epistemologists can have belief in God be properly basic for them, then why not voodoo epistemologists? Again, AP will concede that they can within their epistemic rights (justified), but not warranted. So the Son of the Great Pumpkin Objection Fails. At most, all these objections show is that there is no de jure objection to theistic belief in general (e.g., Muslims). That will have to be settled dependent on how successful de facto arguments are against specific religious beliefs.

The Christian Project – while AP’s public project has been successful, his Christian project might need some modification. AP only offers thin evidence here, and his suggestion that if the Christian God exists, then he would want us to know him and would have provided a way for that to occur isn’t a statement that a Christian evidentialist would disagree with. So more insight from Scripture and experience is needed in order to explicate a Christian model of warranted Christian belief. Since the Sensus Divinitatis and the testimony of the H.S. are experientially indistinguishable, we ought to use the testimony of the H.S. (Rom. 8:16) because of Scripture. Also, the H.S. being described as a cognitive faculty outside of people that forms belief in them is off base. Rather, the H.S. is better seen as a form of testimony that provides the appropriate circumstances for a properly basic belief to be formed.

Overall, Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology is a helpful (and many think successful) theory of explaining warranted Christian belief.

For more, see Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford University Press).

Posted on

Limited Time Only – $2.99 – Is God Just a Human Invention?

Everyone has questions about God. That’s why Sean McDowell and I wrote this book. It’s only $2.99 on Kindle for a limited time. Christmas is around the corner, maybe gift it to a student or parent you know who wants to explore their faith to see if it is actually true. We examine 18 of the toughest claims made by skeptics and atheists. If you find this helpful, please help us spread the word by sharing this post on Facebook and Twitter (below).

Atheism is making a comeback. From bookstores to bus campaigns, the question of God is up for public debate–and well-known atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are leading the charge. While these authors, who have been dubbed “The New Atheists,” argue against religion in general, they aim most of their criticisms and complaints at the world’s largest religion–Christianity. Why are people reading books that bash God and ridicule faith? And how can Christians respond?

The writings of the New Atheists are especially challenging to the emerging generation who are skeptical of authority and have not been given answers to the hows and whys of faith’s honest questions. For these readers especially, authors Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow have penned an accessible yet rigorous look at the arguments of the New Atheists. Writing from a distinctively Christian perspective, McDowell and Morrow lay out the facts so that the emerging generation can make up their own mind after considering all the evidence. Divided into two parts–the first addressing the scientific and philosophical challenges to belief in God and the second dealing with the moral and biblical challenges–Is God Just a Human Invention? will respond to each major argument in a way that is balanced, thorough, and easy to understand.

McDowell and Morrow believe that the current religious landscape is both an opportunity and a challenge for people of faith. Now is the time to respond.

Here is a post that explores the common objection that we just invent God to make ourselves feel safe in a scary world.

Posted on

Why Do We Call It Christmas?

So what is the real story of Christmas? What’s the truth behind all the traditions? Here is a GREAT resource for the whole family–Why Do We Call It Christmas? We loved What’s in the Bible with Buck Denver (9 DVD’s on the Old Testament) and this is great as well. As someone who has been to grad school and studied these issues, its refreshing to see a series that does not sacrifice either theological depth or creativity. Kids can handle a lot more than we usually give them! This series has wonderful characters and communicates a level of biblical understanding that many adults will benefit from as well (our 5 and 7 year olds really like it). Clive and Ian are our personal favorites…enjoy!

If you or your children have ever wondered how Christmas has become the holiday we celebrate today, our DVD Buck Denver asks…Why Do We Call It Christmas? is perfect for you! Join intrepid newsman Buck Denver and his friends as they ask and answer big questions about Christmas.

*Would you like to sign up to receive our blog via email?

Posted on

If Saudi Arabia Wants to Monitor Their Women Who Are We to Judge?

Yes, you read the title correctly. Recently there’s been quite the uproar over the electronic monitoring of women situation that is occurring in Saudi Arabia. Apparently men are alerted if their women arrive at the airport to leave the country. CNN reports:

When word started spreading last week that Saudi women — already some of the most oppressed and restricted in the world — were being monitored electronically as they left the country, activists were quick to express their outrage.

But what’s wrong with that? If cultural relativism is true. If Saudi Arabia wants to suppress women’s rights, then who are we to judge? You will remember that Ethical Relativism is:

…the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute moral standards binding on all men at all times. Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs.—John Ladd

Now the problem many expressing outrage in the “civilized west” face is this: Who are we to judge what Saudi Arabia does? On what basis? Their society has decided. And it follows from cultural relativism that this or any other issue for that matter is not a question of better or worse…just different. So on this view, we in the west aren’t better when we treat women with respect and dignity, just different.

But I think the absurdity of this situation in Saudi Arabia reveals at least two things. First, the bankruptcy of the idea that morality is relative to a particular cultural moment. And second, that moral relativists become moral objectivists really quickly when an issue they disagree with is promoted. In other words, people are moral relativists until someone else’s morality deeply affects them.

There are many powerful reasons to reject moral relativism (and I’ve written on them here). But the Reformer’s Dilemma is one of the most compelling. Who doesn’t admire someone who stands up for what’s right—even in the midst of passionate opposition? Figures like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King come to mind. They were all countercultural. And most of us would agree that they affected change for the better. However, if moral relativism is true, then what is “right” is determined by whatever the majority of the culture believes. But this leads to the absurd consequence that those seeking to reform the immoral practices of society (e.g., eliminating racism or ending the oppression of women) are the immoral ones because they are acting against the cultural majority. This is a powerful reason to reject moral relativism.

So who are we to judge? Well, we are people made in the image of God who are rational and compassionate and therefore have all of the necessary capacities to make moral judgments. And when we see other human beings being mistreated and denied the dignity and respect that is theirs simply in virtue of being a special creation of God, we are right to react with moral outrage.

*You can read the whole article on CNN here.