Basic beliefBasic belief

Philosophy of Religion 2008Lecture 8

TodayToday

Procedural work: Returned next WedsSign up for feedback tutorial Weds/Thurs/FridaySo far: some tendency to wing it!

Final topic: Religious belief as basic belief Some exam advice

Does belief require evidence or argument?Does belief require evidence or argument? We’ve considered arguments and evidence for and

against belief in the existence of God Challenging epistemological assumptions! Do we need evidence or argument for reasonable belief? Plantinga: ‘…belief in God is perfectly proper and

rational, perfectly justified and in order, even if it is not accepted on the basis of … arguments, even if the believer doesn’t know of any such arguments, and even if in fact there aren’t any such arguments.’

Belief in God as basic beliefBelief in God as basic belief Plantinga argues that – for the believer – belief in God is

a basic belief It can be rational to believe in God without evidence or

argument (what follows is only an outline!) To understand this we need to understand

FoundationalismThe idea of a basic beliefThe idea of Reformed Epistemology

FoundationalismFoundationalism Debates about the existence of God have tended to

focus on the evidence Last week- evidentialism And arguments aim to provide rational support for

belief (or for unbelief!) But are these needed? Plantinga: the demand for evidence or argument is a

symptom of ‘classical foundationalism’

FoundationalismFoundationalism Foundationalism: searching for solid ground for belief Beliefs that do not themselves need justification, which

can then serve as foundations for inference Are such things possible? Perhaps:

Beliefs whose truth is self evidentPerceptual/sensory beliefsIncorrigible beliefs about my own mental life

FoundationalismFoundationalism Beliefs whose truth is self-evident:

Simple arithmeticFundamental logical principles (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle etc)Simple deductive judgements‘so utterly obvious that one cannot even understand them without seeing that they are true’ (Plantinga, Q & T)

Perceptual beliefs: ‘there’s a tree in front of me’ Incorrigible: ‘I seem to see a tree in front of me’ …

‘I have toothache’ … etc

Basic beliefsBasic beliefs Foundationalism (probably) accepts these as

basic beliefs Rationally justified, even where supporting

evidence or argument is absent (or impossible) And beliefs formed by valid inference from

these basic beliefs are also justified But that’s all!

The failure of foundationalismThe failure of foundationalism Plantinga – two main objections:1. Foundationalism cannot account for many perfectly

reasonable (basic) beliefs, e.g:Belief in other mindsBelief in past eventsBelief in moral preceptsBelief (even) in material objects (depending on criteria)

2. The claim that ‘properly basic’ beliefs can be only evident, perceptual, incorrigible is self-defeating:

It is neither basic on these criteria, nor derived by inference from such basic beliefs …We cannot show evidence or argument for it

Belief in God as basic beliefBelief in God as basic belief So it seems that there are beliefs that should count as

basic without meeting these criteria Why not belief in the existence of God?

If the believer feels aware of a divine presenceIf they feel obligations to GodIf they feel guilty or grateful before GodIf ‘it seems to me that I am in communication with God, and that I see something of his marvellous glory and beauty…’‘The ways you are being appeared to’ (Plantinga in Q & T)

Strictly, these are not beliefs in the existence of God, but the existence of God follows – rationally - from them

Could any belief be properly basic? Could any belief be properly basic? Can any belief count as rational on this basis? Basicality depends on the circumstances … do we have

grounds for the belief? The sort of experiential criteria just mentioned provide

(defeasible) grounds for belief (Provided, presumably that they are veridical) So a difference between grounded and groundless

beliefs … Is Plantinga vulnerable here?

Reformed EpistemologyReformed Epistemology ‘Reformed’ as in the reformation – Calvinistic,

protestant. Resistant to natural theology, arguments for the

existence of God. Argument is irrelevant, since

It is not the ground of faith, and doesn’t bring about faithBelief can be (is) properly basic and perfectly rational – doesn’t need argument or evidenceIt is (Calvin) merely the working out of an innate disposition to belief

Plantinga: but basic belief is not immune to argument, may still be defeated

Reformed epistemologyReformed epistemology

[Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Barth] ‘…think that Christians ought not to accept belief in God on the basis of argument: to do so is to run the risk of a faith that is unstable and wavering, subject to all the wayward whim and fancy of the latest academic fashion. What the Reformers held is that a believer is entirely within his epistemic rights in starting with belief in God, in accepting it as basic, and in taking it as premise for argument to other conclusions’ (Plantinga in Davies p81)

Limits to Plantinga’s argumentLimits to Plantinga’s argument This is unlikely to convert the unbeliever … it depends

on the appropriate basic belief But it doesn’t really seek to do so – Reformed

Epistemology doesn’t think that argument is necessarily appropriate

And it doesn’t prove that the belief is true, just that it is rational (Plantinga has further arguments re warrant)

But it only aims to justify the believer as rational, show that belief in God is as properly basic as other beliefs

Alston on ‘perceiving God’Alston on ‘perceiving God’ Experience of God can provide justified beliefs in a way

analogous to sense perception What justifies ‘arbitrary epistemic chauvinism’ – why not

include religious experiences?Why shouldn’t these be a reliable source of knowledge?Why do we need other, external reasons for believing these are experiences of God (Cf perception)?Why does any experience have to be shared to be reliable?

Kretzmann’s objectionsKretzmann’s objections ‘Plantinga’s “theism without evidence” is not without

evidence’ (Kretzmann in Davies, p106) Plantinga opposes a straw evidentialist (!) …

The evidentialist objection is typically to the strength of the evidence that theistic evidentialists rely on …

Evidentialism doesn’t stand or fall with foundationalismSo trying to refute foundationalism leaves evidentialism untouched

Kretzmann’s objectionsKretzmann’s objections Plantinga’s understanding of evidence is too narrow

Evidence need not mean evidence in addition to raw experience, sense of conviction etc

Plantinga’s understanding of belief is too narrowEven an unsophisticated believer will offer some evidence or justification for belief‘conscientious believers, as well as objectors, live by the evidentialist canon’

There is evidence at play in Plantinga’s account, just not organised in propositional form

The Quinn/Plantinga debateThe Quinn/Plantinga debate

A basic belief can be defeated by evidence, testimony etc

So it needs to be supported by argument and evidence if it is to be maintained…(Plantinga acknowledges this)

The Quinn/Plantinga debateThe Quinn/Plantinga debate

Reading and referencesReading and references Seminar reading Davies Introduction Ch. 1 (2nd Edn) Ch. 2 (3rd Edn) Plantinga: ‘Reformed Epistemology’ in Q & T (Blackwell

Companion) Alston: ‘Perceiving God’ in S & M; ‘Why should there not

be experience of God?’ in BD1 Quinn: ‘defeating theistic belief’ in WLC (and more ...) Hasker ‘The foundations of theism…’ in Faith &

Philosophy 15 … and as reading list.

From last weekFrom last week Cohen, L.J. (1989) ‘Belief and Acceptance’ Mind 98: 367-389 Gerard Manley Hopkins: ‘God’s Grandeur’

The world is charged with the grandeur of God. It will flame out, like shining from shook foil; It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oilCrushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil; And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soilIs bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;And though the last lights off the black West went Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

The ExamThe Exam In Week 1, Autumn Term 3 hours, 3 questions from 10 Questions will cover the entire course, but may not be

limited to single topics … It is not only acceptable, but desirable, to draw on

material from the whole course in answers (stay relevant!)

Procedural questions will not reappear on the exam, but the same topics may do

Some preparation adviceSome preparation advice Remember that the lectures have only been able to

introduce topics … You must do your own further reading and thinking

about these topics and how they fit together Aim to understand, not to cram. A thought out defence

of a position gets much higher marks than an answer merely reproducing lots of course or textbook material

So think!

More preparation adviceMore preparation advice Allow enough time! Prepare a timetable … You may find it helpful to:

Select a more limited range of topics, rather than cover the whole course in a cursory wayMake notes on each topic as a tree structure: main topic; key headings for each topic; key questions under each heading; arguments for/against; strengths and weaknessesMake sure you are clear about the basic material, and what you think about it, before reading furtherUse practice questions – procedurals, Q’s from Davies etc

Some exam adviceSome exam advice Questions are carefully worded, so read the question

carefully, and answer it (error #1!) Don’t wing it … pick questions you are confident you

know about Stick closely to the question – go for depth rather than

breadth Don’t just describe – discuss (error #2!). And arrive at a conclusion …

More exam adviceMore exam advice Plan your answers, give yourself time to think. Good

exam answers have depth We don’t expect you to memorise quotations – if one

comes to mind by all means use it (and cite the author!) Split your time equally between answers Put question numbers on your paper … (doh!)

Goodbye….Goodbye…. All lectures slides and recordings available on my user

page: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~nj509/ Marking criteria in your Handbook, or here:

www.york.ac.uk/depts/phil/currentugrads/gradedescriptors.pdf

‘How we mark’ courtesy of Tom Stoneham, here : www.york.ac.uk/depts/phil/current/howdowemark.htm

You can mail me with timely and specific questions (I won’t do your revision for you!)

Feedback, please!

Any questions?Any questions?