God and Rationality

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-292
Author(s):  
Robert C. Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Soren Kierkegaard ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Alvin Plantinga ◽  
Philosophical Language ◽  
Belief In God ◽  
Natural Theologian ◽  
Relevant Notion ◽  
Special Case

Is belief in God rational? Over a century ago, Hegel (following Kant) and Søren Kierkegaard established one set of parameters for discussing that question, but in a language that appears opaque to many philosophers today. Very recently, Alvin Plantinga, James Ross, and George Mavrodes have been debating similar issues in a modern analytic idiom. In this essay, I want to use this modern philosophical language in an attempt to clarify certain issues surrounding the relevant notion of “rationality” and related notions essential to the natural theologian, and in so doing attempt to make presentable the dispute between Hegel and Kierkegaard.For our purposes here, I take “rationality” to be predicated of an epistemological concept of belief, even if, as I believe, any such notion would have to be a special case and a logical derivative of a more general notion of “rationality” as primarily practical.

Relativized realizability in intuitionistic arithmetic of all finite types

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas D. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Extension Theorem ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Conservative Extension ◽  
First Order ◽  
New Information ◽  
Reflection Theorem ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Special Case ◽  
Dependent Choice ◽  
Intuitionistic Arithmetic

In this paper we introduce a new notion of realizability for intuitionistic arithmetic in all finite types. The notion seems to us to capture some of the intuition underlying both the recursive realizability of Kjeene [5] and the semantics of Kripke [7]. After some preliminaries of a syntactic and recursion-theoretic character in §1, we motivate and define our notion of realizability in §2. In §3 we prove a soundness theorem, and in §4 we apply that theorem to obtain new information about provability in some extensions of intuitionistic arithmetic in all finite types. In §5 we consider a special case of our general notion and prove a kind of reflection theorem for it. Finally, in §6, we consider a formalized version of our realizability notion and use it to give a new proof of the conservative extension theorem discussed in Goodman and Myhill [4] and proved in our [3]. (Apparently, a form of this result is also proved in Mine [13]. We have not seen this paper, but are relying on [12].) As a corollary, we obtain the following somewhat strengthened result: Let Σ be any extension of first-order intuitionistic arithmetic (HA) formalized in the language of HA. Let Σω be the theory obtained from Σ by adding functionals of finite type with intuitionistic logic, intensional identity, and axioms of choice and dependent choice at all types. Then Σω is a conservative extension of Σ. An interesting example of this theorem is obtained by taking Σ to be classical first-order arithmetic.

Faith and Goodness

1989 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 167-191
Author(s):  
Eleonore Stump
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Religious Belief ◽  
The Other ◽  
Alvin Plantinga ◽  
Belief In God ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Richard Swinburne ◽  
The Relationship

Recent work on the subject of faith has tended to focus on the epistemology of religious belief, considering such issues as whether beliefs held in faith are rational and how they may be justified. Richard Swinburne, for example, has developed an intricate explanation of the relationship between the propositions of faith and the evidence for them. Alvin Plantinga, on the other hand, has maintained that belief in God may be properly basic, that is, that a belief that God exists can be part of the foundation of a rational noetic structure. This sort of work has been useful in drawing attention to significant issues in the epistemology of religion, but these approaches to faith seem to me also to deepen some long-standing perplexities about traditional Christian views of faith.

The Crucial Disanalogies Between Properly Basic Belief and Belief in God

1990 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Grigg
Keyword(s):  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Basic Belief ◽  
Alvin Plantinga ◽  
Belief In God ◽  
The Senses ◽  
Classical Foundationalism ◽  
Basic Beliefs

The antifoundationalist defence of belief in God set forth by Alvin Plantinga has been widely discussed in recent years. Classical foundationalism assumes that there are two kinds of beliefs that we are justified in holding: beliefs supported by evidence, and basic beliefs. Our basic beliefs are those bedrock beliefs that need no evidence to support them and upon which our other beliefs must rest. For the foundationalist, the only beliefs that can be properly basic are either self-evident, or incorrigible, or evident to the senses. Belief in God is none of these. Thus, says the foundationalist, belief in God is justified only if there is sufficient evidence to back it up.

Uniqueness, definability and interpolation

1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 554-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kosta Došen ◽  
Peter Schroeder-Heister
Keyword(s):  
Proof Theory ◽  
Interpolation Theorem ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Structural Part ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Case ◽  
Additional Constant ◽  
Special Case

This paper is meant to be a comment on Beth's definability theorem. In it we shall make the following points.Implicit definability as mentioned in Beth's theorem for first-order logic is a special case of a more general notion of uniqueness. If α is a nonlogical constant, Tα a set of sentences, α* an additional constant of the same syntactical category as α and Tα, a copy of Tα with α* instead of α, then for implicit definability of α in Tα one has, in the case of predicate constants, to derive α(x1,…,xn) ↔ α*(x1,…,xn) from Tα ∪ Tα*, and similarly for constants of other syntactical categories. For uniqueness one considers sets of schemata Sα and derivability from instances of Sα ∪ Sα* in the language with both α and α*, thus allowing mixing of α and α* not only in logical axioms and rules, but also in nonlogical assumptions. In the first case, but not necessarily in the second one, explicit definability follows. It is crucial for Beth's theorem that mixing of α and α* is allowed only inside logic, not outside. This topic will be treated in §1.Let the structural part of logic be understood roughly in the sense of Gentzen-style proof theory, i.e. as comprising only those rules which do not specifically involve logical constants. If we restrict mixing of α and α* to the structural part of logic which we shall specify precisely, we obtain a different notion of implicit definability for which we can demonstrate a general definability theorem, where a is not confined to the syntactical categories of nonlogical expressions of first-order logic. This definability theorem is a consequence of an equally general interpolation theorem. This topic will be treated in §§2, 3, and 4.

Certain predicates defined by induction schemata

1953 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Wang
Keyword(s):  
Number Theory ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Formal System ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Constant Number ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
System L ◽  
Truth Definition ◽  
Consistency Proofs ◽  
Special Case

It is known that we can introduce in number theory (for example, the system Z of Hilbert-Bernays) by induction schemata certain predicates of natural numbers which cannot be expressed explicitly within the framework of number theory. The question arises how we can define these predicates in some richer system, without employing induction schemata. In this paper a general notion of definability by induction (relative to number theory), which seems to apply to all the known predicates of this kind, is introduced; and it is proved that in a system L1 which forms an extension of number theory all predicates which are definable by induction (hereafter to be abbreviated d.i.) according to the definition are explicitly expressible.In order to define such predicates and prove theorems answering to their induction schemata, we have to allow certain impredicative classes in L1. However, if we want merely to prove that for each constant number the special case of the induction schema for a predicate d.i. is provable, we do not have to assume the existence of impredicative classes. A certain weaker system L2, in which only predicative classes of natural numbers are allowed, is sufficient for the purpose. It is noted that a truth definition for number theory can be obtained in L2. Consistency proofs for number theory do not seem to be formalizable in L2, although they can, it is observed, be formalized in L1.In general, given any ordinary formal system (say Zermelo set theory), it is possible to define by induction schemata, in the same manner as in number theory, certain predicates which are not explicitly definable in the system. Here again, by extending the system in an analogous fashion, these predicates become expressible in the resulting system. The crucial predicate instrumental to obtaining a truth definition for a given system is taken as an example.

Can Belief in God be Basic?

Horizons ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-282
Author(s):  
Anthony M. Matteo
Keyword(s):  
Natural Theology ◽  
Theory Of Knowledge ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Alvin Plantinga ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
Belief In God ◽  
Natural Tendency ◽  
Marginal Status

AbstractAt least since the Enlightenment, religious thinkers in the West have sought to meet the “evidentialist” challenge, that is, to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a rational affirmation of the existence of God. Alvin Plantinga holds that this challenge is rooted in a foundationalist approach to epistemology which is now intellectually bankrupt. He argues that the current critique of foundationalism clears the way for a fruitful reappropriation of the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition's assertion of the “basic” nature of belief in God and its concomitant relegation of the arguments of natural theology to marginal status. After critically assessing Plantinga's proposal—especially its dependence on a nonfoundationalist theory of knowledge—this essay shifts to an analysis of the transcendental Thomist understanding of the rational underpinnings of the theist's affirmation of God's existence, with particular emphasis on the thought of Joseph Maréchal. It is argued that the latter position is better equipped to fend off possible nontheistic counterarguments—even in our current nonfoundationalist atmosphere—and, in fact, can serve as a necessary complement to Calvin's claim of a natural tendency in human beings to believe in God.

Basic Theistic Belief

1986 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-464
Author(s):  
Bredo C. Johnsen
Keyword(s):  
Alvin Plantinga ◽  
Parallel Argument ◽  
Belief In God ◽  
Reductio Ad Absurdum ◽  
Positive Argument ◽  
Theistic Belief

In several recent writings and in the 1980 Freemantle Lectures at Oxford, Alvin Plantinga has defended the idea that belief in God is ‘properly basic,’ by which he means that it is perfectly rational to hold such a belief without basing it on any other beliefs. The defense falls naturally into two broad parts: a positive argument for the rationality of such beliefs, and a rebuttal of the charge that if such a positive argument ‘succeeds,’ then a parallel argument will ‘succeed’ equally well in showing that belief in the Great Pumpkin is properly basic. (It is taken as obvious that ‘the Great Pumpkin objection,’ unrebutted, would constitute a reductio ad absurdum of the claim that the positive argument had succeeded in proving anything at all.) In this essay I shall argue both that Plantinga has partially misconceived the objection, and that he has not succeeded, indeed cannot succeed, in rebutting it, for the objection does in fact constitute a reductio ad absurdum of his position. For the sake of ease of exposition, I shall first provide a bare sketch of the positive argument, though I shall discuss it directly only as it bears on the attempted reductio.

4. Divine hiddenness and the nature of faith

2018 ◽  
pp. 52-63
Author(s):  
Tim Bayne
Keyword(s):  
Religious Belief ◽  
Moral Agency ◽  
Soren Kierkegaard ◽  
William James ◽  
Divine Hiddenness ◽  
Belief In God

Assuming—as theists invariably do—that God wants to be recognized and worshipped, why does God not make Godself manifest? Perhaps God is ‘silent’ because God doesn’t exist. ‘Divine hiddenness and the nature of faith’ considers both the hiddenness objection and the benefits of divine hiddenness: that divine hiddenness is a precondition for moral agency; that if God’s existence were evident to us then any relationship that we might have with God would be inauthentic; and that belief in God is more virtuous when it is based on faith. It also discusses the thoughts of W.K. Clifford, William James, and Søren Kierkegaard on religious belief.

Heeft Het Theïsme Eigen Gronden? Alvin Plantinga Over de ‘Proper Basicality’ van Religieus Geloof

2000 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerrit Glas
Keyword(s):  
Religious Belief ◽  
Knowledge Claim ◽  
Alvin Plantinga ◽  
Belief In God ◽  
Positive Account ◽  
Design Plan ◽  
Proper Response

The title of this article is ambiguous in the sense that it may direct the attention to either (a) theism as a system of beliefs of persons who are referring to particular facts that serve as external grounds for the foundation of theist beliefs (the foundationalist approach) or (b) to theism as a system of beliefs of persons who are convinced of theism’s truth on grounds that are intrinsic to their belief (the Pascalian approach). Traces of both conceptions of theism can be found in Alvin Plantinga’s thesis of the ‛proper basicality’ of religious belief, for instance in the distinction between evidence of the ‛on the basis of …’- type and evidence of the ‛inclination’- type. However, these two types of evidence do only lead to doxastic experience. In order to be warranted with respect to a particular knowledge claim, beliefs must be produced by noetic capacities that function properly, i.e. according to their design plan and in contexts that are appropriate to these capacities. This externalist epistemology exerts its greatest power in the criticism of the ‛evidentialist objection to belief in God’. However, it raises a number of objections with respect to its positive account of theism. When every community of thinkers creates its own relevant set of examples in order to establish criteria of proper basicality, does this not lead to skepticism? And, can doxastic experience not be honoured as a proper response to being called by divine discourse and, correspondingly, be seen as the relational foundation of theist belief?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document