➧ Faith and Rationality Author Alvin Plantinga – Marjoriejane.co.uk

Faith and Rationality pdf Faith and Rationality , ebook Faith and Rationality , epub Faith and Rationality , doc Faith and Rationality , e-pub Faith and Rationality , Faith and Rationality f5ad2d1f61e Faith And Rationality Investigates The Rich Implications Of What The Contributors Call Calvinistic Or Reformed Epistemology This Is The View Of Knowledge Enunciated By Calvin, Further Developed By Barth That Sees Belief In God As Its Own Foundation In The Contributors Terms, It Is Properly Basic In Itself


10 thoughts on “Faith and Rationality

  1. says:

    The contributors in this volume argue that given the inadequacies in epistemic evidentialism and classic foundationalism, the believer is warranted and rational in believing that God exists apart from evidence I will summarize the key arguments, point out tensions and weaknesses, and conclude with some comments.Wolterstorff s essays NW argues that foundationalism and evidentialism particularly in the stronger Cliffordian case cannot present a challenge to theism because said evidentialism is The contributors in this volume argue that given the inadequacies in epistemic evidentialism and classic foundationalism, the believer is warranted and rational in believing that God exists apart from evidence I will summarize the key arguments, point out tensions and weaknesses, and conclude with some comments.Wolterstorff s essays NW argues that foundationalism and evidentialism particularly in the stronger Cliffordian case cannot present a challenge to theism because said evidentialism is self referentially incoherent it s claim fails to live up to its own standards NW s longer essay surveys the various options He sometimes gets lost or the reader does in the many nuances, but there are some gems from Thomas Reid.Plantinga AP gives his legendary essay on reason and belief in God It s a fantastic essay, but in many ways the reader is urged to skip it and go to AP s larger trilogy on the flip side, reading this essay serves as a nice intro to the larger trilogy The essay s strength is in rebutting claims on how a Christian knows or can t know a certain thing I am also glad he dealt with The Great Pumpkin Objection I think his response gives the Reformed Epistemologian breathing room, but I am not sure it makes the objection go away.Mavrodes, Alston, HolwerdaMavrodes gave several short stories on religious belief They were better than I expected His essay Turning, while fascinating as a story goes, is otherwise incoherent Alston introduces what will be his later project on sense perception and religious belief I will say noHolwerda responds to Wolfhart Pannenberg I think he does a great job showing WP s criticism of dialectical theology, and gives some good problems to WP, but I would hesitate to recommend this essay because it came out before WP s publication of his systematic theology which Holwerda himself acknowledges.MarsdenGeorge Marsden gives an amazing essay on American Religious Epistemology in history He shows how Thomas Reid was received by 19th century theologians The theologians interpreted Reid along empirical and inductive lines which may or may not be what Reid himself intended This proved disastrous when it met Darwinism and probably paved the way for Old Evangelicalism s demise.Reflections Most of these contributors have since fine tuned their arguments The book itself cannot serve as a template Further, I think the authors do a good job in showing Christian belief is warranted, but not that it is correct And while Plantinga is correct that creating worldviews on the spot is a difficult endeavor ala the Great Pumpkin , he didn t say it was impossible.Still, a classic work in its own right


  2. says:

    Worth it for Plantinga and Wolterstorff s opening two essays alone Though Plantinga s is probablyfamous, as it eventually grew into a book, Wolterstorff s is, to my mind, an all time best If what you re looking for is a nonfoundationalist treatment of the rationality of belief in God s existence and who isn t you re in the right place.


  3. says:

    Reading only the first chapter on two colleagues recommendation.Plantinga s Aquinas is not Maritain s Aquinas That s enough of a conclusion for me, at this point.


  4. says:

    While I will be the first to admit of the many syllogisms and arguments that were above my comprehension, I will not allow that to be an excuse for the whole of it First off, to me, a mark of incredible intelligence is the ability to break down difficult things to climb to the mountains peak and have the ability to climb back down to the village, illuminating what he she had just witnessed, knowing the villagers lack the knowledge of what he she has seen, he she is left with the task of under While I will be the first to admit of the many syllogisms and arguments that were above my comprehension, I will not allow that to be an excuse for the whole of it First off, to me, a mark of incredible intelligence is the ability to break down difficult things to climb to the mountains peak and have the ability to climb back down to the village, illuminating what he she had just witnessed, knowing the villagers lack the knowledge of what he she has seen, he she is left with the task of understanding it enough to reveal it to his villagers using examples of things they do know If this was not his intent, I concede, but if it was he failed.I thought the rest of which I did comprehend consisted of poor arguments which could be broken down to purely semantical issues He does tackle the foundationalist s argument quite well, but that being removed, he is simply left with subpar arguments.Quotes Clearly I am not foolish or irrational in believing something on the authority of my favorite mathematician, even if I cannot work it out for myself The question is not whether it is foolish to believe something on God s authority, but whether it is foolish to believe that God has in fact proposed a given item for my belief Obviously, if he has, then I should believe it but what is my reason or motive for supposing that in fact it is God who has proposed Nevertheless it would be irrational to take as basic the denial of a proposition that seems self evident to you


  5. says:

    Great so far


  6. says:

    Read the first chapter and will probably go onto the rest someday.


  7. says:

    Easily some of the best contemporary Christian philosophers A phenomenal work.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *