Part 3 argues for the warranted nature of theistic belief and then of specifically Christian belief. Plantinga must then argue that Christian beliefs are aimed at truth and that Christians are not cognitively dysfunctional. Part 2 clarifies the question he is pursuing by more clearly defining warrant and noting that his main objection he is answering is the “Freud-Marx” complaint. Freud’s complaint is that Christian belief functions properly, but is not aimed toward truth, while Marx’s complaint is that Christians are cognitively dysfunctional. Plantinga shows his mastery of the self-referentially incoherent argument. Part 1 clears the ground against those who say we cannot predicate about God, following in Kant’s footsteps. The main argument of the book is then that, if Christianity is true, then it is more likely than not warranted, in which case we can truly know the things of the gospel. If a belief is true, whenever enough warrant is added to that true belief, it becomes knowledge. By warrant, he means something similar to rationality, but a bit different. In Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga argues that belief in the main tenets of Christianity is warranted. Even more important than that, though, is his defense of Christian belief. Many attribute to his influence the fact that many philosophers now find it intellectually defensible to believe in God (see, e.g., Mascord’s work). Alvin Plantinga is well-known as one of the most important Christian philosophers of our day.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |