II. Foundationalism
A. Introduction
Is God's existence rational?
Evidentialism + Foundationalism = Two major arguments against Existence of God.
B. Model of Human Knowledge- like a building with different levels.
1. Non-basic beliefs- ones that must be based in a Basic Belief.
2. Basic beliefs- ones that can stand on their own (base for non-basic).
A foundationalist says that a belief is rational if and only if it is supported by a basic belief.
C. Two Kinds of Foundationalism
1. Narrow (Wrong way)- says that there's only 3 kinds of Basic beliefs on which to base all other beliefs.
a. Self-evident- is not a logically self defeating idea.
b. Incorrigible- a logical proposition that must be accepted, but who's denial is not a logical contradiction.
c. Evident to the senses- can be experienced.
2. Broad (Right Way)- improves upon those three, but does not exclude them from the group. We simply add on.
D. Plantinga's Rebuttal of Narrow Foundationalism
1. Logically self-defeating- The three criteria it holds cannot support the idea itself- therefore, it's not valid. (Basically, Foundationalism says that things have to be supported by a belief that can be proven, but there's no provable basic belief that can "Prove" Foundationalsim).
2. Cut off from many rational beliefs
If a belief has to be rooted in a basic belief that's Self evident, Incorrigible, or Evident to the senses, it cannot include the following:
1. The External world.
2. External Minds.
3. Memories.
(These are the same as the ones Nash mentioned with Evidentialism. You can't exactly "prove" these, but they definitely exist).
POINT: All of this is laying the foundation for the punchline: The belief in God is a basic one. It's a presupposition we were all created with. It's truth, whether we can conjure up physical proof or not. (There is proof, but Nash's point is that even if there wasn't, it'd still be true).
E. Plantinga's Broad Foundationalism
1. Many basic beliefs- to include the three above, but not limited to them.
2. Augustine and Calvin- If it is rational to belief in other minds, or memories without proof, it is also rational to believe in God. (Especially because we DO have proof. It may not be scientific or measurable, but with history or art, the signs are there- it's up to us to see them).
3. Accept propositions based on authority
To explain this one, Nash gives an example. A teenager who grows up in a Theistic environment, and comes to believe in Christ, came to believe because of a presupposition and Authority (Learning by example), rather than by logical proof. When you think about it, that'd be lots of people. You don't have to explain the defense against Theism to an 11 year-old for him to believe in Christ. At that age, kids look to parental figures for guidance, and often if parents follow Christ, so will their children.
F. The "Great Pumpkin" Objection
This comes from the Peanuts comic strip- Linus believes in the Great Pumpkin (Kind of like Santa, but for Halloween).
1. Belief in God is arbitrary. If you believe in God with no proof, anything can be believed with no proof- like the Great Pumpkin.
2. Plantinga - "All beliefs are not basic." Just because one goes, that doesn't mean they all do. Things take reasoning and common sense. And there are presuppositions- we were made with the ability to know God.
3. Plantinga is doing negative apologetics. He has other proof, but in this instance, they are making a positive claim, and he is simply providing reasonable doubt.
4. Real-world situation - worldviews. This really all comes down to the lens through which people view the world. This is about a clash between Theism and Naturalism. It all comes down to Christianity being the only worldview to measure up.
Hopefully Nash goes into actual arguments for the existence of God tomorrow, instead of just rebuttals. Defense is great, but I'd like something to walk away with, so to speak. As far as application: This information comes in handy when you're dealing with someone who demands proof for the existence of God. It's not the positive part yet, just a defense, but it's a start.
I'm bet the argument for existence of God started at "no one was arguing". Then someone made a claim, then someone made a rebuttal and counterclaim. Someone else made another rebuttal and counterclaim.
ReplyDeleteWe get to learn all the claims and rebuttals in order that we don't make the same claims and have someone come up with what is considered a standard rebuttal.
As far a logic goes, though, I wonder if an argument exists that doesn't have a rebuttal associated with it.
Hmm, that's an interesting idea. I think that theoretically there would have to be an argument that didn't have a rebuttal. I can see there being a critique of the argument, but as far as truth goes, in God's book at least, there's got to be a way to perfectly present a truth (So that there wouldn't be a rebuttal). I guess because we're human there's really no way to discover it though.
ReplyDeleteOr as you were saying a few days ago, the convincing isn't done by logic itself. It is done by personal experience.
ReplyDeleteThe logic is there to remove the barriers that one may have. But it doesn't do the eventual convincing.
Very true.
ReplyDelete