WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Anyone have comments or thoughts on this viewpoint?
Reformed epistemology maintains that beliefs about God can be rational even if not supported by evidence or argument because ... they are properly basic.
* * *
Foundationalism argues as follows: suppose that a person holds a belief that p. This belief may be derived from another belief--namely, the belief that q. The belief that q may be derived from another belief--namely, the belief that r. And the belief that r, in turn, may be derived from the belief that s. But, says the foundationalist, this cannot go on infinitely; the chain of justification must eventually come to a stop. There must be a belief that is accepted without reasons. A belief system thus requires foundations or basic beliefs. Let us suppose a theist accepts this foundationalist position. The theist could hold theistic beliefs such as God exists not because the theist infers that God exists from other beliefs ... Rather, God exists is a foundation of belief--other beliefs are derived from it, not it from them. In this way, we can understand how a belief based on faith might be regarded as rational. A belief based on faith is a foundational, or basic, belief. Critics like Clifford have no good case for excluding this belief from the foundations, [Alvin] Plantinga maintains.
* * *
Unfortunately, as stated so far, Reformed epistemology meets up with an obvious problem. Any belief, no matter how bizarre, could be defended just by saying that it is properly basic. In addition, even if a person is rational in holding a certain basic belief, this does not itself show that the belief is true. A belief can be rational without being true. People who once believed the earth was flat held a belief that was false, but, nonetheless, was rational relative to their other beliefs.
Shatz, David. Philosophy and Faith. pp. 424-5
