5.4 Reformed Epistemology and Proper Basicality

Reformed epistemology shakes up traditional ideas about religious belief. It argues that believing in God can be rational without needing evidence or arguments. This view, developed by philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, challenges the idea that faith must be backed by proof.

At the heart of this approach is the concept of "proper basicality." This means some beliefs, including religious ones, can be rationally held without being based on other beliefs. It's like how we trust our senses or memories without constantly questioning them.

Reformed Epistemology

Key Concepts and Figures

Top images from around the web for Key Concepts and Figures

• 

  God as One View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Alvin Plantinga - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  neopolitan's philosophical blog: The moral argument in graphical form View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  God as One View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Alvin Plantinga - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Key Concepts and Figures

• 

  God as One View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Alvin Plantinga - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  neopolitan's philosophical blog: The moral argument in graphical form View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  God as One View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Alvin Plantinga - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Reformed epistemology challenges classical foundationalism and argues for the rationality of religious belief without evidence or arguments
• Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and William Alston developed Reformed epistemology
• Properly basic beliefs can be rationally held without being based on other beliefs
• John Calvin's sensus divinitatis inspired Reformed epistemology as a cognitive faculty for knowing God
• Emphasizes cognitive faculties and processes in forming religious beliefs rather than propositional evidence
• Challenges evidentialist objection to theism claiming belief in God is irrational without sufficient evidence
• Plantinga's concept of warrant plays crucial role in account of knowledge and justified belief

Philosophical Foundations

• Draws from John Calvin's idea of sensus divinitatis (cognitive faculty for knowing God)
• Emphasizes role of cognitive faculties in belief formation over propositional evidence
• Challenges evidentialist objection to theism (belief in God irrational without evidence)
• Plantinga's concept of warrant crucial for knowledge and justified belief
• Critiques classical foundationalism's stringent requirements for basic beliefs
• Shifts burden of proof in religious debates to atheists providing defeaters

Proper Basicality in Belief

Concept and Examples

• Proper basicality refers to beliefs rationally held without being based on other beliefs or requiring evidential support
• Properly basic beliefs include memory beliefs (remembering what you ate for breakfast), perceptual beliefs (seeing a tree), and beliefs about other minds (knowing your friend is happy)
• Formation results from proper functioning of cognitive faculties in appropriate environments
• Does not imply infallibility as properly basic beliefs can be defeated by other evidence or arguments
• Application to religious beliefs suggests theistic belief can be rational without arguments or evidence for God's existence

Implications and Criticisms

• Suggests religious believers can be rational without possessing arguments or evidence
• Critics argue proper basicality may lead to epistemic relativism (different beliefs considered basic by individuals or cultures)
• May justify holding religious beliefs in face of competing claims (implications for religious diversity)
• Some philosophers contend proper basicality of religious beliefs may lead to fideism or irrationalism
• Debates center on whether religious beliefs meet criteria for proper function and appropriate environments in belief formation

Arguments for and Against Proper Basicality

Supporting Arguments

• Religious experiences and sensus divinitatis provide rational basis for properly basic religious beliefs
• Parity argument contends accepting other beliefs (memory, perception) as properly basic should extend to religious beliefs
• Critique of classical foundationalism supports proper basicality of religious beliefs
• Shifts burden of proof in religious debates, challenging atheists to provide defeaters for theistic belief

Critical Perspectives

• Critics argue religious beliefs differ significantly from other properly basic beliefs in content and degree of disagreement
• Great Pumpkin objection (raised by Plantinga) questions whether proper basicality allows any belief to be considered rational
• Some contend proper basicality of religious beliefs leads to fideism or irrationalism
• Concerns about epistemic complacency and reduced importance of interfaith dialogue and apologetics

Implications of Reformed Epistemology

Rationality and Justification

• Suggests religious believers can be rational without possessing arguments or evidence
• Shifts burden of proof in religious debates to atheists providing defeaters
• Warranted Christian belief model (Plantinga) shows how theistic beliefs could constitute knowledge if Christianity is true
• Challenges traditional natural theology and attempts to prove God's existence through rational arguments

Faith and Reason

• Implies faith can be rational without grounding in philosophical argumentation
• Challenges relationship between faith and reason in traditional philosophy of religion
• May reduce importance of engaging in interfaith dialogue and apologetics
• Provides framework for maintaining rationality of religious belief in pluralistic contexts

Reformed Epistemology vs Other Frameworks

Contrasting Approaches

• Unlike classical foundationalism, does not require all beliefs based on self-evident or incorrigible foundations
• Contrasts with evidentialism by arguing religious beliefs can be rational without meeting evidentialist criteria
• Differs from skeptical theism by providing positive account of how religious beliefs can be justified and constitute knowledge
• Contrasts with religious pragmatism by focusing on truth and warrant of beliefs rather than practical consequences

Similarities and Distinctions

• Shares similarities with religious fideism but maintains religious beliefs can be rational and warranted
• Differs from religious existentialism emphasizing subjective commitment over rational justification
• Shares common ground with religious experientialism but provides broader epistemological framework beyond religious experiences
• Challenges traditional natural theology's attempts to prove God's existence through rational arguments