Plantigas Claim About Belief in God - Essay Example

Plantinga Claim about Belief in God Plantiga’s Claim about Belief in God Introduction The rationality of belief in God is avery convoluted and profound issue that has been discussed and explained by the philosophers in so many different ways. From time to time different philosophers have propositioned different thoughts and argument claiming the rationality about the belief in God (Oppy and Scott, 2010). The philosophers belonging to the classical and traditional schools of thoughts have explained in detail their arguments about the existence of God and the rationality of individual’s belief in it. These thoughts are accepted as well as criticized by other philosophers contributing towards long and endless debates about belief in God and its rationality. American analytical philosopher Alvin Carl Plantinga has also added some new dimensions to thoughts about rationality of belief in God by proposing the argument that belief in God is properly basic and needs to justification and evidenced from the other beliefs (Attridge, 2009). Plantinga’s Claim Plantinga divulged his philosophical views regarding belief in God and proposed his claim that the belief in God used to be properly basic depending upon the circumstances being faced by the individuals. He argues that there are certain circumstance when the belief in God in properly basic because certain circumstances compel the individuals to build faith upon certain things about God even if they do not find any support and reasons for those things from their other existing beliefs (Oppy and Scott, 2010). Plantinga referred to the classical thought that asserts that belief in God is always held in connection with other beliefs. He opposed this classical thought about the dependency of belief in God upon some evidences from other beliefs and claims that it is not always necessary because people do believe upon many things about God that are not verified and asserted by their other beliefs. He argues that believing in God does not require any argument. He made his claim in his article "Reformed Objection to Natural Theology" published in 1981. After the publication of this article there was strong wave of criticism and opposition was provoked especially from the philosophers having firm belief upon the arguments made by the classical philosophy. Through his claim and argument Plantinga has contributed to the epistemology called reformed epistemology in which he argues that the justification about the belief in God is not dependent upon evidence but it is properly basic and could be held regardless of other belief’s support to it. The argument poses by Plantinga has been regarded an unusual proposition within the sphere of Anglo-American philosophy and also criticizes and opposed by other theorists and philosophers (Attridge, 2009). Response to Plantinga’s Claim Plantinga’s argument has raised several questions regarding the rationality of belief in the existence of God. His claims initiated heated debate and the philosophers of his age widely attempted to express their views about his philosophy. The propositions of Plantinga have mainly provoked opposition and criticism and many philosophers (e.g. Goetz, 1983; Robbins, 1983; Gilman, 1988) and they have identified some contradictions and flaws in his claims and thoughts. For instance a professor of theology at Saint Bonaventure University Apczynski (1992) believes that Plantinga has attempted to represent non-conventional connection of Christian philosophy to the reality whereas some theorists also regard his claim as a different understanding of nature of religious belief (Goetz, 1983, p475) Plantinga contradicts the traditional thought about religion that assumes that religious beliefs necessarily need justification weather known or unknown. His non-conventional through provoked the idea that one do not have faith upon the existence of God as a conclusion of the other things upon which he has belief but he accept God existence as basic and this belief should be taken as part of bedrock of his noetic structure. It implies that one accepts the belief in God as basic and do not look for justification of this belief. Goetz (1983, p476), professor at the University of Notre Dame opposes the argument posed by Plantinga and put forward his stance that belief in God ought not to be considered basic on the structure of the epistemology of a person because this belief is inferred and used to base upon the basic propositions and beliefs held by a person. Goetz stresses upon the thought that inference is essential for belief in God and thus belief in God could not be properly basic. He believes that there must be some evidences affirmed by the existing beliefs to hint towards the existence of God and in the absence of such evidences it is not practically possible to have rational belief in the existence of God. Langtry (1989, p143) from the Department of Philosophy, The University of Melbourne also believes that Plantinga has offered a partial answer to the question about rationality of belief in God and his partial account seems to be fail because it does not clearly demonstrate the theory of properly basic that needs to be clearly understood in this context. He believes that if there is a properly basic belief even then some circumstance could become ground to justify that belief and then the belief became dependent upon that circumstance. Gilman (1988, p143) from the Mary Baldwin College, Staunton believes that belief in God could not be regarded solely as properly basic or rational because it is indeed both properly basic and rational. He tries to find out a midway between the classical foundationalism and Plantinga views and asserts that there are certain kind of justifications required to hold belief in God thus the belief is not be regarded completely independent or dependent upon those justification. Robbins (1983, p241) from the Indiana University at South Bend regards Plantinga proposition as an unusual approach within the conventional philosophical realm and his claim are not clear enough to satisfy the traditional school of thoughts that do not accept the proposition that belief in God is properly basic. He argue that Plantinga needs to clarify his thoughts to eliminate the contradictions identified within his own philosophies because it seems that Plantinga has given up on the philosophical foundationalism and failed to align his thoughts with it. Despite this criticism and opposition, there are some philosophers that see weightage in the arguments proposed by Plantinga and stress upon the point that whatever Plantinga has claimed must be understood in detailed and should not be misunderstood. Apczynski (1992, p302) believes that Plantinga’s overall strategy ought not to be understood only in the logic of his arguments but one has to see all of his claims in the context of alternative intellectual traditions where his claims prove their worth and credibility. Though Apczynski also see the need of further clarification in the claims made by Plantinga but he coincide with his initial stance and agree that there is possibility that individuals could hold belief in God regardless of evidences and support from their other beliefs. It shows that there is a school of thought that gives importance to the claim made by Plantinga and insists the philosophers to understand the viewpoint of Plantinga and not to oppose him completely without understanding his thoughts in their real meanings. The rationality of belief in God is very complex issue and enduring debate that could not be concluded simply in some sentences. Plantinga stance that I accept God but not on the basis of other beliefs in not widely accepted and appraised because it lacks some necessary explanation and support. This preposition is not complete and sound enough to build complete faith upon it. The conclusion made by Plantinga is also contrary to the traditional thoughts and need more explanation and convincing argument to make people agree with his claim. The study of Plantinga’s claim that belief in God is properly basic reveals that there are some weak points in this claim that need further workout and explanation to invite the appreciation and acceptance from the people. It is a generally accepted thought that the belief in God often needs some justification and evidences from the existing beliefs and the general observation and philosophical structure of people also affirm the claim that there are several evidences and support from the other beliefs that make a person develop his faith and belief in the existence of God. Hence the entire discussion could be sum up with the conclusion that the belief in God ought not to be properly basic but it seems dependent upon the support and evidences from the other beliefs. The philosophy divulged by Plantinga could not be accepted as it is neither it could be completely rejected and opposed because there are some things that need further clarification and debate whereas some weaknesses and contradictions in his claims are very obvious. There is need of finding a conjoint between the classical and traditional philosophical views and Plantinga’s thought to make it acceptable for the followers of traditional schools of thought as well as for the people looking towards nonconventional and different philosophical style to define the matter about having belief in the existence of God. References Attridge, H.W. (2009). The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? Yale University Press Apczynski, J.V. (1992). “Belief in God, Proper Basicality, and Rationality”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Summer, 1992), pp.301-312 Gilman, J.E. (1988). “Rationality and Belief in God”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 24, No. 3 (1988), pp. 143-157 Langtry, B. (1989). “Properly Unargued Belief in God”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Dec., 1989), pp. 129-154 Robbins, J.W. (1983). “Is Beleif in God properly basic?” International Journal of Philosophy of Religion 14:4, p241 Oppy, G. and Scott, M. (2010). Reading Philosophy of Religion, London: John Wiley and Sons Goetz, S.C. (1983). “Belief in God Is Not Properly Basic”, Religious Studies, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec. 1983), pp. 475-484 Read More