Advertisement

Proper Basicality and the Evidential Significance of Internalist Defeat: A Proposal for Revising Classical Evidentialism

  • Michael Czapkay Sudduth
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Philosophy and Religion book series (STPAR, volume 19)

Abstract

Several recent contributions in Anglo-American philosophy of religion continue to address questions in the ongoing dialogue between evidentialist and Reformed epistemologies of religious belief. These questions typically focus on the claim of the Reformed epistemologist that theistic belief is, at least for some people under some circumstances, properly basic (i.e., rational, justified, or warranted in the absence of propositional evidence). In this paper I propose an argument for the compatibility of these prima facie opposed stances on the positive epistemic status of theistic and Christian belief.1 My argument focuses on the evidential significance and implications of defeating conditions construed in an internalist sense. I argue that internalist defeaters provide a framework for revising classical evidentialism and fine-tuning the Reformed epistemologist’s account of the conditions under which theistic belief is properly basic. My defeater based evidentialism involves an evidentialist requirement that avoids several of the shortcomings of the classical evidentialist requirement, and it is logically consistent with the idea of properly basic theistic belief, even where the proper basicality thesis is developed along externalist lines.

Keywords

Natural Theology Christian Belief Proper BASICALITY Reflective Rationality Theistic Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alston, W. P.: 1988a, ‘An Internalist Externalism,’ in: Alston: 1989, 185–226.Google Scholar
  2. Alston, W. P.:1988b, ‘Justification and Knowledge,’ in: Alston: 1989, 172–182.Google Scholar
  3. Alston, W. P.: 1989, Epistemic Justification, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  4. Alston, W. P.: 1991a, ‘Knowledge of God,’ in: M. Hester (ed.), Faith, Reason, and Skepticism, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  5. Alston, W. P.:1991b, Perceiving God,Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  6. Audi, R.: 1993, The Structure of Justification, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Bergmann, M.: 1997a, Internalism, Externalism, and Epistemic Defeat,unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  8. Bergmann, M.:1997b, Internalism, Externalism, and the No-Defeater Condition,’ Synthese 110, 399–417.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, C. S.: 1994, ‘Evidentialist and Non-Evidentialist Accounts of Historical Religious Knowledge,’ International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 35, 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldman, A.: 1986, Epistemology and Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Greco, J.: 1993, ‘Is Natural Theology Necessary for Theistic Knowledge,’ in: Zagzebski (ed.): 1993.Google Scholar
  12. Moser, P: 1989. Knowledge and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Nozick, R.: 1981, Philosophical Explanations, The Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Plantinga, A.: 1983, ‘Reason and Belief in God,’ in: Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff (eds.), Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  15. Plantinga, A.: 1991, ‘The Prospects for Natural Theology,’ Philosophical Perspectives 5, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Plantinga, A.:1993, Warrant and Proper Function,University of Oxford, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Plantinga, A.: 1994, ‘Naturalism Defeated’ (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
  18. Plantinga, A.: 1997, Warranted Christian Belief (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  19. Pollock, J.: 1974, Knowledge and Justification, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  20. Pollock, J.: 1984, ‘Reliability and Justified Belief,’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 14, 103–114.Google Scholar
  21. Pollock, J.: 1986, Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, Rowman and Littlefield, Savage.Google Scholar
  22. Quinn, P.: 1993, ‘The Foundations of Theism Again: A Rejoinder to Plantinga,’ in: Zagzebski (ed.): 1993.Google Scholar
  23. Sudduth, M.: 1995, Alstonian Foundationalism and Higher-Level Theistic Evidentialism,’ International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 37, 24–44.Google Scholar
  24. Sudduth, M.: 1999a (forthcoming), ‘The Internalist Character and Evidentialist Implications of Plantingian Defeaters,’ International Journal forPhilosophy of Religion.Google Scholar
  25. Sudduth, M.:1999b (forthcoming), ‘Can Religious Unbelief be Proper Function Rational,’ Faith and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  26. Wolterstorff, N.: 1983, ‘Can Religious Belief be Rational if it has No Foundations,’ in: Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff (eds.), Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  27. Wykstra, S.: 1995, ‘Externalism, Proper Inferentiality and Sensible Evidentialism,’ Topoi 14, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zagzebski, L. (ed.): 1993, Rational Faith: Catholic Responses to Reformed Epistemology, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  29. Zeis, J.: 1993, ‘Natural Theology: Reformed?,’ in: Zagzebski (ed.): 1993.Google Scholar
  30. Zeis, J.: 1998 (forthcoming), ‘Plantinga’s Theory of Warrant: Religious Beliefs and Higher-Level Epistemic Judgments,’ American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Czapkay Sudduth

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations