1,356,404 research outputs found
Alvin Plantinga e seu macroargumento contra o naturalismo
Full text linkTese (doutorado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia, Florianópolis, 2009.O objetivo desta tese é apresentar um macroargumento proposto por Alvin Plantinga contra o naturalismo (MCN). O MCN é constituído de: (1) Se um sujeito S é epistemicamente racional e consciente, então S escolhe apenas as crenças verdadeiras ou provavelmente verdadeiras; caso contrário S é irracional. (2) Os argumentos A1, ou A2, ou A3 são sólidos, sendo suas premissas verdadeiras ou provavelmente verdadeiras. (3) Logo, S é racional se crer em A1, ou A2, ou A3. (4) Se S crer em A1, ou A2, ou A3, então S tem um anulador para o naturalismo. (5) Logo, é irracional para S crer no naturalismo. Para sustentar o MCN, vamos utilizar fundamentalmente das argumentações do filósofo americano Alvin Plantinga (1993a, 1993b, 2000 etc.) contra o naturalismo. Os principais argumentos de Plantinga contra o naturalismo podem ser resumidos a três: A1 - Toda definição naturalista fracassa na análise de função apropriada: (P1) Nenhuma das definições puramente naturalistas de função apropriada é ou necessária ou suficiente. (P2) A única análise de função apropriada provavelmente correta é advinda do comprometimento com o teísmo cristão ou algo similar. (C) Logo, as definições puramente naturalistas são provavelmente falsas. A2 - Um sujeito comprometido com o naturalismo e a teoria da evolução (N&E) não pode ter nenhum conhecimento: (P1) Dado um sujeito, S, comprometido com N&E, sua confiabilidade cognitiva R de produzir crenças verdadeiras é provavelmente baixa ou inescrutável. (P2) Se R não é confiável, então as crenças de S são anuladas. (C) Se S tem um anulador para todas as suas crenças, S tem um autoanulador para N&E. A3 # Um cientista cristão não deve estar comprometido com o naturalismo metodológico, uma forma velada de naturalismo ontolontológicos naturalistas na ciência moderna. (P3) A ciência moderna tem uma estratégia de seleção materialista. (P4) O cientista cristão não é irracional em levar em conta suas crenças religiosas como possíveis hipóteses científicas. (P5) Segundo o naturalismo metodológico, é arbitrário defender um único modelo de fazer ciência. (P6) Dadas outras possibilidades de hipóteses, os cientistas cristãos podem optar por hipóteses como mais prováveis do que as dos cientistas não-cristãos. (C) É possível uma ciência fora do domínio do naturalismo metodológico.The aim of this thesis is to present Alvin Plantinga#s macro-argument against naturalism (MCN). MCN is put forward as follows: (1) If a subject S is epistemicaly rational and conscious, then S chooses only true or probably true beliefs; if not S is irrational. (2) The arguments A1 or A2 or A3 are sound. (3) Hence, S is rational if she believes either in A1 or A2 or A3. (4) If S believes in A1 or A2 or A3, then S has one defeater for naturalism. (5) Therefore, it is irrational for S to believe in naturalism. In order to maintain naturalism we will use fundamentally the arguments against naturalism by the American philosopher Alvin Plantinga (1993a, 1993b, 2000 etc.). Plantinga#s main arguments against naturalism can be reduced to three: A1 # every naturalistic, metaphysical definition fails in the analysis of proper function: (P1) no naturalistic definition of proper function is either necessary or sufficient. (P2) The only analysis of proper function probably correct stems from the commitment to Christian theism or something similar. (C) Therefore, pure naturalist definitions are probably false. A2 # A subject committed to naturalism and evolution theory (N&E) cannot have any knowledge: (P1) given a subject, S, committed to N&E, the cognitive reliability R of her producing true beliefs is probably low or inscrutable. (P2) If R is not reliable, then the beliefs of S are defeated. (C) If S has a defeater for all her beliefs, S has a defeater for N&E. A3 # A Christian scientist is not to be committed to methodological naturalism, a disguised form of metaphysical naturalism: (P1) the scientific activity is not neutral. (P2) There are naturalist, metaphysical presuppositions in modern science. (P3) Modern science has a materialistic strategy of selection. (P4) A Christian scientist is not irrational in taking into account her religious beliefs as possible scientific hypotheses. (P5) according to methodological naturalism it is arbitrary to defend a unique model of making science. (P6) Given other possibilities of hypotheses, Christian scientists can choose hypotheses as more probable than those of non Christian scientists. (C) A science independent of methodological naturalism is possible
About Cornelius Plantinga Jr.
No full textCornelius (Neal) Plantinga Jr. (b. 1946) is a writer, preacher, and theologian who is president emeritus of Calvin Theological Seminary (2001–2011) and an emeritus senior research fellow at the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship (2012–2024). His prior roles within the Calvin community include professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary (1979–1996) and dean of the chapel at Calvin College, now University (1996–2001).
Plantinga was ordained in the Christian Reformed Church in North America in 1971 and served as pastor of Webster CRC in Webster, New York, from 1971 through 1975. He has been an active preacher and speaker throughout his career, including appearances at Calvin’s January Series (1993, 1997, 2013) and frequent participation in the Calvin Symposium on Worship and the Calvin Festival of Faith & Writing.
Plantinga is the author of several books, including Gratitude (2024), Under the Wings of God (2023), Morning and Evening Prayers (2021), Reading for Preaching (2013), Engaging God’s World (2002), Beyond Doubt (2001), and Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be (1996).
For more than a decade while on staff at CICW, Plantinga co-hosted a summer seminar for preachers in conjunction with the Center for Excellence in Preaching at Calvin Theological Seminary. These seminars led to the publication of Reading for Preaching, one of three of his books—along with Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be and Engaging God’s World—that have been named Book of the Year by Christianity Today.
Plantinga has had more than 230 articles and essays published in periodicals such as The Banner, Reformed Journal, Perspectives, Theology Today, The Thomist, First Things, Christianity Today, The Christian Century, and Books & Culture. He has served in editorial roles for Books & Culture, Calvin Theological Journal, and First Things.
Plantinga earned an AB degree from Calvin College (1967), a BD degree from Calvin Theological Seminary (1971), and a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary (1982). He has also been a visiting scholar at St. Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge.https://digitalcommons.calvin.edu/cicw-staff-work/1004/thumbnail.jp
The theology of revelation and the epistemology of Christian belief : the compatibility and complementarity of the theological epistemologies of Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga
No full textThis study brings Christian theology and Christian analytic philosophy into dialogue through an examination of the compatibility and complementarity of Karl Barth’s theology of revelation, and Alvin Plantinga’s epistemology of Christian belief. The first two chapters are aimed at elucidating the central features of Karl Barth’s theology of revelation and clarifying his attitude toward the place of philosophy in theology. We establish that, for Barth, human knowledge of God is objective, personal, cognitive knowing, enabled by the Spirit’s transforming gift of participation in revelation. We dispel the notion that Barth is hostile to philosophy per se and chart the boundaries he gives for its interface with theology.
In chapters 3 and 4, we focus on Alvin Plantinga’s Christian epistemology of warranted belief, and its relationship to Barth’s theology of revelation. A general alignment emerges in their shared inductive approach and agreed rejection of the necessity and sufficiency of human arguments for warranted Christian belief. Their contributions are complementary, with Barth providing what Plantinga lacks in theological depth, and Plantinga providing what Barth lacks in philosophical clarity and defense. Despite their general compatibility, two areas of significant potential incompatibility are flagged for closer analysis in the final two chapters.
In chapter 5, we consider their views on natural theology. We extend our thesis of complementarity with respect to negative apologetics, and argue for a harmonizing interpretation of their views with respect to a potential positive contribution from natural theology. The final chapter addresses the role of faith and the constitution of a genuine human knowledge of God. We conclude that Barth and Plantinga do not disagree about the personal and propositional character of revelation, but may disagree about the possibility of a generically theistic de re knowledge of God independent of the Spirit’s gift of faith
Epistemological Presuppositions for the Theistic Philosophy of A. Plantinga
No full textThe author attempts to reconstruct the context surrounding the projects for a reformed epistemology and an affi rmation of the Christian faith by Alvin Plantinga. An analysis of Plantinga’s epistemological presuppositions reveals how they are intertwined. The basic problem surrounding the dispute between fundamentalists and anti-fundamentalists concerning the nature of knowledge constituted the background against which the theistic philosophy of Plantinga began to take form. Examining this dispute, the author of this article attempts to define the position of the philosophers in question and to clarify the differences in terminology which are found in the appropriate literature. The relationship between evidentialism and reliabilism on the one hand and internalism and externalism on the other is noted. The author distinguishes between an early (weak) and later (strong) type of reformed epistemology. In the former type, Plantinga was concerned with refuting the classical version of epistemological fundamentalism; in the latter, he concentrated his attention on constructing a philosophical scheme which could grant to the basic teachings of theism an epistemological foundation. The author discusses and analyses the main objections to Plantinga. These objections are of two kinds: theological and philosophical. The philosophical objections are aimed at the epistemological presuppositions suggested by Plantinga. The author concludes that, in spite of the value and longevity of Plantiga’s arguments, the solutions to the questions which he raised are dependent on contemporary discussions of analytical epistemology
REKONSTRUKSI EPISTEMOLOGI AGAMA DALAM PEMIKIRAN ALVIN PLANTINGA
No full textABSTRAK
REKONSTRUKSI EPISTEMOLOGI AGAMA DALAM
PEMIKIRAN ALVIN PLANTINGA
Oleh : Yoan Sabili Amra
Penelitian ini berorientasi kepada analisis yang membedah
suatu komponen khusus terhadap pemikiran epistemologi Alvin
Plantinga dengan dasar yang disebutnya sebagai epistemologi
Warrant (jaminan), sehingga dalam bangunan pemikiran
epistemologi Plantinga, akan berkolaborasi terhadap struktur
bangunan epistemologi agama Alvin Plantinga, dengan
demikian terbentuklah sebuah pemikiran secara eksplisit
terhadap epistemologi Agama, maka penulis menguraikan
secara koherensi bagaimana latar belakang muncul nya
rangkaian pemikiran epistemologi Alvin Plantinga, kemudian
dalam konteks dari pemikiran agama Plantinga akan menjadi
landasan rekonstruksi lebih lanjut mengenai bagaimana sisi
relevansi ini bermuara terhadap kajian epistemologi
kontemporer dan juga keislaman, sehingga penelitian ini
berakar dari pembedahan secara struktur dalam
mengaplikasikan pemikiran Plantinga kedalam sebuah variabel
epistemologi yang berbasis keyakinan, terlebih khusus
tercantum rangkaian kritik tajam dari formula awal atas
pendirian pemikiran Alvin Plantinga dalam epistemologi,
maupun epistemologi Agama.
Metode yang digunakan dalam keberlangsungan penelitian
ini penulis menggunakan teknik pengumpulan data dari berupa
karya-karya primer dari Alvin Plantinga maupun karya
sekunder dari buku-buku yang membahas pemikiran Alvin
Plantinga, pada teknik penggunaan data, penulis menggunakan
sistem menganalisa dan membaca secara eksplisit dalam
pengolahan data di dalam karya-karya buku yang dibutuhkan.
Sehingga uraian hasil yang telah di telisik oleh penulis dalam
mengkaji penelitian ini akan membuahkan hasil dan kesimpulan
yang baik, khususnya analisis data yang digunakan oleh peneliti
diantaranya yaitu, metode interpretasi, hermeneutika, dan
iv
induktif. Adapun metode penelitian secara umum yang tersaji
dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode kualitatif
dan kajian pustaka.
Hasil dari penelitian ini telah menunjukan bahwa dalam
komponen pemikiran epistemologi agama Plantinga, Alvin
Plantinga memiliki basis pemikiran epistemologi agama nya
yaitu: Epistemologi reformed, teori Fungsi yang tepat, dan
model Aquinas/Calvin, dan diantara epistemologi agama Alvin
Plantinga telah berpangkal terhadap sistem susunan keyakinan
yang bersifat teologis, yang memiliki pijakan terhadap entitas
keyakinan pada kepercayaan teistik. Sehingga rekonstruksi dan
relevansi yang memadai dari epistemologi agama Plantinga
telah menunjukan bahwa susunan dari tiga rangkaian
epistemologi agama Plantinga mengimplikasi terhadap
penawaran atas epistemologi kontemporer yang sebelumnya
juga di kritik oleh Plantinga, dengan demikian hasil dari
rangkaian itu menunjukan bahwa sisi relevansi itu rekonstruksi
terhadap beberapa keyakinan yang berbasis teistik, khususnya
Islam. Maka dalam hal ini penulis menunjukan bahwa gagasan
epistemologi keagamaan Alvin Plantinga telah menjadi fondasi
yang kredibel terhadap sebuah keyakinan keagamaan.
Kunci: Alvin Plantinga, Epistemologi, Agama.
v
ABSTRACT
This research is oriented towards an analysis that dissects
a specific component of Alvin Plantinga's epistemological
thinking on the basis of what he calls Warrant epistemology, so
that in the building of Plantinga's epistemological thinking, it
will elaborate on the structure of Alvin Plantinga's religious
epistemology, thus forming an explicit thought on the
epistemology of Religion, so the author describes coherently
how the background of the emergence of Alvin Plantinga's
series of epistemological thoughts, then in the context of
Plantinga's religious thought will be the basis for further
reconstruction regarding how this relevance side leads to
contemporary epistemological studies and also Islam, so that
this research is rooted in structural dissection in applying
Plantinga's thoughts into an epistemological variable based on
faith, especially including a series of sharp criticisms of the
initial formula for Alvin Plantinga's thinking in epistemology,
as well as the epistemology of Religion.
The method used in the continuation of this research, the
author uses data collection techniques from primary works
from Alvin Plantinga and secondary works from books that
discuss Alvin Plantinga's thoughts, in the data usage technique,
the author uses a system of analyzing and reading explicitly in
processing data in the works of books needed. So that the
description of the results that have been examined by the author
in reviewing this research will produce good results and
conclusions, especially the data analysis used by the researcher
including the interpretation, hermeneutic, and inductive
methods. As for the general research methods presented in this
study, the author uses qualitative methods and literature
reviews.
The results of this study have shown that in the components
of Plantinga's religious epistemology thinking, Alvin Plantinga
has a basis for his religious epistemology thinking, namely:
Reformed epistemology, proper function theory, and the
vi
Aquinas/Calvin model, and among Alvin Plantinga's religious
epistemology has been based on a theological belief system,
which has a basis for the entity of belief in theistic beliefs. Thus,
the adequate reconstruction and relevance of Plantinga's
epistemology of religion have shown that the arrangement of
the three series of Plantinga's epistemology of religion has
implications for the offer of contemporary epistemology that
was previously criticized by Plantinga, thus the results of the
series show that the relevance side reconstructs several theistic�based beliefs, especially Islam. So in this case the author shows
that Alvin Plantinga's idea of religious epistemology has
become a credible foundation for a religious belief.
Keywords: Alvin Plantinga, Epistemology, Religion
Plantinga and the bayesian justification of beliefs = Plantinga e a justificação bayesiana de crenças
Full text linkO artigo pretende mostrar que a crítica que Alvin Plantinga faz contra o bayesianismo como descrição do que está envolvido na noção de racionalidade não se aplica a toda forma de bayesianismo. A abordagem de Swinburne, baseada em uma teoria lógica da probabilidade, é um exemplo de bayesianismo não atingido pela crítica de Plantinga. Além disso, o artigo defende que, em uma abordagem bayesiana, desaparece o problema da probabilidade decrescente, apontado por Plantinga em Warranted Christian Belief (2000). Assim, mesmo que não seja uma descrição suficiente da noção de racionalidade, o bayesianismo ajuda a entender importantes elementos presentes no raciocínio indutivo, especialmente os relativos aos argumentos cumulativo
Naturalized truth and Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism
No full textThere are three major theses in Plantinga's latest version of his evolutionary argument against naturalism. (1) Given materialism, the conditional probability of the reliability of human cognitive mechanisms produced by evolution is low; (2) the same conditional probability given reductive or non-reductive materialism is still low; (3) the most popular naturalistic theories of content and truth are not admissible for naturalism. I argue that Plantinga's argument for (1) presupposes an anti-materialistic conception of content, and it therefore begs the question against materialism. To argue for (2), Plantinga claims that the adaptiveness of a belief is indifferent to its truth. I argue that this claim is unsupported unless it again assumes an anti-materialistic conception of content and truth. I further argue that Plantinga's argument for (3) is not successful either, because an improved version of teleosemantics can meet his criticisms. Moreover, this version of teleosemantics implies that the truth of a belief is (probabilistically) positively related to its adaptiveness, at least for simple beliefs about physical objects in human environments. This directly challenges Plantinga's claim that adaptiveness is indifferent to truth.PhilosophyReligionA&HCI0ARTICLE127-467
Stenmark, Plantinga, and Scientific Neutrality
Full text linkIn the preceding article Mikael Stenmark rejects both (a) Alvin Plantinga\u27s specific arguments aimed at legitimating \u27Augustinian\u27 science (or more generally \u27worldview-partisan\u27 science) and (b) the legitimacy of such \u27sciences\u27 After contending further that the Augustinian-science strategy is in any case not the most appropriate response by believers to the matters motivating Plantinga\u27s attempt, Stenmark then offers an alternative strategic proposal of his own. In the following response, I briefly raise some issues concerning Stenmark\u27s exegesis of Plantinga, then take issue with Stenmark\u27s philosophy of science and with the case he advances in support of his alternative proposal
Plantinga\u27s Model of Warranted Christian Belief
No full textWarranted Christian Belief is undoubtedly Plantinga\u27s magnum opus, not only because of its size – 508 pages with routine interludes of fine print – but also because it constitutes the culmination of a research project in which Plantinga has been actively engaged for nearly forty years. Even those diametrically opposed to his assertions will find much with which to be impressed. For instance, Paul Moser – someone who shares Plantinga\u27s theistic beliefs, but whose epistemological convictions differ markedly – has commented that some of Plantinga\u27s insights on sin and its cognitive consequences “are alone worth the price of admission.” And Richard Gale, who shares neither Plantinga\u27s theism nor his epistemology, praises the “depth, rigor and brilliance” of Warranted Christian Belief (hereafter, WCB).WCB is unique in a number of respects. While Plantinga is undoubtedly a philosopher through and through, his book is clearly not written primarily for specialists in philosophy. While philosophers will find plenty of sophisticated philosophical arguments with which to satiate their appetite, many may be surprised at the overtly theological nature of much of this volume. Moreover, those who are unfamiliar with his thought may be taken aback by the unabashedly conservative disposition of his theology; he unapologetically accepts the inspiration of Scripture, the divine instigation of faith, the noetic effects of sin, and other theological concepts that many in academia have relegated to a bygone era
Is Plantinga a Friend of Evolutionary Science?
Full text linkIn this article, I consider whether Plantinga, in "Where the Conflict Really Lies," is a friend or an opponent of evolutionary science. First, I consider what sorts of things count as opposing evolutionary science. Second, I highlight three key questions, one having to do with whether God is specially involved in evolutionary history, and the other two having to do with the rationale for the answer to the first question. Third, I examine various answers to these three key questions, including Plantinga’s in Where the Conflict Really Lies, and consider which of them are unfriendly to evolutionary science. I close with a few additional questions for Plantinga
- …
