Saturday, February 11, 2006

 

REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGY

"The protest begins with a self­referential argument that Plantinga has stated several times. Why should we assume that no belief is rational if it is not either self­evident, or an incorrigible deliverance of consciousness, or inferred from some other belief that is in one of these two classes? The thesis that only beliefs that conform to this requirement are rational ones can not itself be stated without violating this principle, since it is neither self­evident nor incorrigible, nor deducible from a proposition that is. "It is no more than a bit of intellectual imperialism on the part of the founationalist." But if we resist it we will see that belief in God may well be rational even if it is not inferred from beliefs that conform to the foundationalist programme. It might be ~ properly basic." Those who believe in God this way have not been shown by the foundationalist to have violated any epistemic or doxastic obligations in doing so."



Professor Terence Penelhum



http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/other/penel.html

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?



<< ? Christian Bloggers # >>