Epistemology And Evidence: An Analysis Of Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan D. MATHESON
2020 ◽  
pp. 207-227
Author(s):  
Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski

This chapter objects to three features of Reformed Epistemology, two of which are connected with its Calvinist inspiration and one of which was a feature of most contemporary epistemology at the time. First, like almost all contemporary American epistemology, Reformed Epistemology focuses on individual beliefs—where by a “belief” is meant a particular state of believing, not the proposition believed—and it searches for the properties of a belief that convert it into knowledge. Second, Reformed Epistemology is largely externalist. Third, an important motivation driving externalist theories is the desire to avoid skepticism; in fact, this is one of its most attractive features. Reformed epistemology is externalist and nonvoluntarist; it is individualistic rather than communally based; and it makes the element of belief that converts it into knowledge a property of the belief rather than of the believer. The approach here is Aristotelian in spirit and differs from the Reformers in all three respects.


2018 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel Sutanto

AbstractNicholas Wolterstorff argues that Kant had erected an epistemological boundary between mental representations and external reality that precipitates an anxiety in modern theologians about whether one can properly refer to God. As a way past this boundary, Wolterstorff's Reformed epistemology retrieves Thomas Reid's account of perception as an alternative to Kant, according to which knowledge of external objects is direct and immediate. Further, Wolterstorff points to the Dutch neo-Calvinist Herman Bavinck as one who bears many “reidian” elements in his epistemology, especially in the way in which Bavinck argues that the epistemic accessibility of the external world ought to be taken for granted. The thesis of this present paper, however, is that a closer investigation of Bavinck's account of perception reveals that he, unlike Reid, accepts the gap between mental representations and external objects, such that representations are those through which we know the world. Bavinck affirms that a correspondence between the two can be obtained by an appeal to the resources found in Christian revelation. In effect, what emerges in a close comparison of Bavinck and Reid is that Bavinck's account is an alternative theological response to the kantian boundary—one according to which mental representations correspond with external objects because both participate in an organically connected cosmos shaped by a Triune God.


1992 ◽  
Vol 42 (168) ◽  
pp. 398
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Russman ◽  
Dewey J. Hoitenga

1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-374
Author(s):  
David Wisdo

Human thought is unable to acknowledge the reality of affliction. To acknowledge affliction means saying to oneself: I may lose at any moment, through the play of circumstances over which I have no control, anything whatsoever I possess, including those things which are so intimately mine that I consider them as being myself. There is nothing that I might not lose.(Simon Weil)


2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
GREGORY W. DAWES

AbstractIn rejecting Plantinga's ‘reformed epistemology’, Jeremy Koons has argued that no beliefs are epistemically basic, since even perceptual beliefs arise from observations that are theory-dependent. But even if all observations are theory-dependent, not all theories are alike. Beliefs that are dependent on uncontroversial bodies of theory may be ‘basic’ in the sense that they play a foundational role in the acquisition of knowledge. There is, however, another problem with reformed epistemology. It is that even if Christian beliefs were basic in this sense, they could face evidential challenge, for the epistemic status of a ‘basic’ belief depends, in part, on its probabilistic or explanatory relations to our other beliefs. It follows that Christian faith remains vulnerable to evidential arguments, such as Paul Draper's argument from evil.


2003 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL SUDDUTH

It is a widely held viewpoint in Christian apologetics that in addition to defending Christian theism against objections (negative apologetics), apologists should also present arguments in support of the truth of theism and Christianity (positive apologetics). In contemporary philosophy of religion, the Reformed epistemology movement has often been criticized on the grounds that it falls considerably short of satisfying the positive side of this two-tiered approach to Christian apologetics. Reformed epistemology is said to constitute or entail an inadequate apologetic methodology since it rejects positive apologetics or at least favours negative over positive apologetics. In this paper I argue that this common objection fails on two grounds. First, while the arguments of Reformed epistemology are relevant and useful to apologetics, neither Reformed epistemology nor its epistemological project should be identified with a distinct school or method of apologetics. Secondly, while certain claims of Reformed epistemology seem to imply a rejection of positive apologetics, or at least a preference for negative or positive apologetics, I argue that no such conclusion follows. In fact, although unimpressed by particular versions of natural theology and positive apologetics, Reformed epistemologists have provided criticisms of each that can constructively shape future approaches to the apologetic employment of natural theology and Christian evidences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document