DOCSLIB.ORG

Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Uppsala Studies in Philosophy of Religion 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Uppsala Studies in Philosophy of Religion 2 Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Uppsala Studies in Philosophy of Religion 2 Lotta Knutsson Bråkenhielm Religion – evolutionens missfoster eller kärleksbarn? Kognitionsvetenskaplig religionsforskning och dess relevans för religiösa trosföreställningars rationalitet Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Geijersalen, Engelska parken, Uppsala, Friday, 2 December 2016 at 11:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Faculty of Theology). The examination will be conducted in Swedish. Faculty examiner: Docent Olof Franck (Göteborgs universitet, Institutionen för didaktik och pedagogisk profession). Abstract Knutsson Bråkenhielm, L. 2016. Religion – evolutionens missfoster eller kärleksbarn? Kognitionsvetenskaplig religionsforskning och dess relevans för religiösa trosföreställningars rationalitet. Uppsala Studies in Philosophy of Religion 2. 225 pp. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ISBN 978-91-554-9726-2. This thesis is on Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) and its relevance for the rationality of religious beliefs. An epistemical model for rationality is developed according to which: a person (or group of persons) is rational to hold a certain belief a) if this belief can be assumed to have been generated by one or more reliable cognitive mechanisms, b) applies whether or not she is aware of what these mechanisms are, but c) only as long as it does not exist or arise some reasons (defeaters) to question the belief; if they occur, she must d) reflect on it and find other reasons or grounds to hold the belief in question. Two different positions are examined, namely: 1) negative relevance: the findings and theories in CSR undermines the rationality of religious beliefs; 2) positive relevance: religious beliefs need not be irrational in the light of CSR, in fact CSR may actually support the rationality of religious beliefs. Two lines of argument can be distinguished among those who argue for a negative relevance: a) the natural explanations that are provided by CSR are preferable; and b) religious beliefs are irrational because they are caused by unreliable cognitive mechanisms. Among those who argue for positive relevance two arguments can be distinguised: a) religious beliefs seem to come naturally to humans and therefore are probably true; and b) CSR confirms empirically that we are equipped with a "divine mechanism" that there are reasons to believe is reliable. The conclusions are: CSR has negative relevance to beliefs in "finite supernatural agency", but not for the faith of "infinite supernatural agency". First, the first type of beliefs is easier to explain by being generated by unreliable cognitive mechanisms; secondly they are difficult to integrate with what we otherwise know about the world. A category that falls outside the scope of CSR and thus not even potentially can be affected, is beliefs in "supernatural non-agency". Keywords: Cognitive Science of Religion, epistemic rationality, religious beliefs, cognitive mechanisms, intuitive and reflective reasoning, minimally counterintuitive concepts, hypersensitive agency detection device, theory of mind, religious naturalness, evolutionary byproduct, false positives, sensus divinitatis, causes and reasons, finite and infinite supernatural agency Lotta Knutsson Bråkenhielm, Studies in Faith and Ideologies, Philosophy of Religion, Box 511, Uppsala University, SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden. © Lotta Knutsson Bråkenhielm 2016 ISBN 978-91-554-9726-2 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-304723 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-304723) Till Calle! Innehåll Förord: vad ska jag göra? ............................................................................... xi 1. Har kognitionsvetenskaplig religionsforskning relevans för religiösa trosföreställningars rationalitet? .................................................................... 13 1.1 Vetenskap och livsåskådning .............................................................. 14 1.2 Framväxten av biokognitiva religionsförklaringar ............................. 15 1.3 Syfte och frågeställning ...................................................................... 19 1.3.1 Tillvägagångssätt ........................................................................ 19 1.3.2 Varför studien är religionsfilosofiskt intressant .......................... 21 1.4 Religion och religiösa trosföreställningar ........................................... 23 1.4.1 Religionsbegreppet ..................................................................... 23 1.4.2 Religionsbegreppet inom KVR ................................................... 27 1.4.3 Hur religionsbegreppet används i denna avhandling .................. 28 1.5 Avgränsningar, terminologi och grundantaganden ............................ 31 1.5.1 Religion och rationalitet .............................................................. 33 1.6 Avhandlingens innehåll ...................................................................... 35 1.7 Kapitelsammanfattning ....................................................................... 35 2. Kognitionsvetenskaplig religionsforskning ............................................... 37 2.1 KVR som forskningsprogram ............................................................. 38 2.1.1 KVR som naturalistiskt projekt .................................................. 43 2.2 KVR och religiösa trosföreställningar ................................................ 46 2.2.1 Gudar och andra övernaturliga agenter ....................................... 47 2.2.2 Andra religiösa föreställningar ................................................... 50 2.3 KVR och orsakerna till de religiösa föreställningarnas uppkomst och struktur ............................................................................................... 52 2.3.1 Det mänskliga medvetandet ........................................................ 53 2.3.2 Religiösa trosföreställningar som evolutionära biprodukter ....... 55 2.3.3 Religionens naturlighet: intuitivt och reflekterat tänkande ......... 62 2.4 Diskussion av kritik som framförts mot KVR .................................... 67 2.4.1 Fokus på kausala förklaringar och tredje-person-perspektiv ...... 67 2.4.2 Anspråk på uttömmande förklaringar ......................................... 71 2.4.3 Anspråk på universella förklaringar ............................................ 74 2.4.4 Lätt att föreställa sig ej detsamma som att tro på ........................ 77 2.5 Kapitelsammanfattning ....................................................................... 80 3. En rationalitetsmodell för att bedöma KVRs relevans .............................. 83 3.1 KVRs relevans för religiösa trosföreställningars rationalitet ............. 84 3.1.1 Vetenskap och religion ............................................................... 87 3.2 Rationalitet, sanning och kunskap ...................................................... 88 3.2.1 Rationalitetsbegreppet ................................................................. 91 3.3 Modeller för att bedöma rationalitet ................................................... 94 3.3.1 KVRs rationalitetsmodell ............................................................ 97 3.4 KVRs relevans: en modifierad rationalitetsmodell .......................... 100 3.4.1 Integrationskriterier och god reflektion .................................... 103 3.5 Kapitelsammanfattning ..................................................................... 105 4. Negativ relevans ...................................................................................... 107 4.1 Undergräver KVR religiös tro? ........................................................ 108 4.1.1 Negativ relevans – två argument ............................................... 111 4.2. Naturliga förklaringar att föredra .................................................... 113 4.2.1 Varför bör de naturliga förklaringarna föredras? ...................... 115 4.2.2 Utesluter en naturlig förklaring med nödvändighet en alternativ förklaring? .......................................................................... 119 4.3 Opålitliga kognitiva mekanismer ...................................................... 124 4.3.1 Biproduktsargumentet ............................................................... 127 4.3.2 Argumentet om falska positiver ................................................ 130 4.3.3 Diskussion: föreligger här ett genetiskt felslut? ........................ 138 4.3.4 Diskussion: evolutionära skäl att hålla något för sant .............. 141 4.4 Har KVR negativ relevans för religiösa trosföreställningars rationalitet? ............................................................................................. 145 4.5 Kapitelsammanfattning ..................................................................... 150 5. Positiv relevans ....................................................................................... 151 5.1 KVR som stöd för religiös tro? ......................................................... 152 5.1.1 Positiv relevans – två argument ................................................ 155 5.2 Religiösa trosföreställningars naturlighet ......................................... 156 5.2.1 Är gudstro mer naturlig än ateism? ........................................... 158 5.2.2 Är en naturlig trosföreställning mer rationell än en onaturlig? ... 161 5.3 Gudsmekanismens pålitlighet ........................................................... 166 5.3.1 Empiriskt stöd för en sensus divinitatis ...................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Science and Religion
    Science and Religion: A Conflict of Methods Timothy Alexander Smith A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Otago, June 2017. i Abstract There is an epistemological conflict between religion and science. While the claims of science are justified using epistemic methods whose reliability has been corroborated by other people and by other methods, the claims of religion are not justified in the same way. Different methods are used. This thesis offers both a comprehensive description of the distinctive epistemic methods of religion and a philosophical appraisal of the claim that such methods are knowledge-conferring. The methods explored are various and care has been taken to sample a broad range of religious cultures. It is found that the same religious methods, when used to answer the same questions, generate different answers for different practitioners. Additionally, the results of religious methods fail to agree with the results of other epistemic methods when employed independently. This lack of independent agreement is the primary reason for the exclusion of religious methods from science. It is further argued that (a) this lack of agreement is evidence that religious methods are unreliable, and (b) the agreement generated by scientific methods is evidence for their reliability. ii Acknowledgements In 2013, I approached Greg Dawes at the AAPNZ Conference at the University of Auckland. ‘What’s wrong with creationism?’ I asked him. ‘Is it untestable in principle or has it simply failed too many tests?’ I can’t remember Greg’s exact reply, but this thesis was the result.
    [Show full text]
  • Craig, William Lane. "Religious Epistemology"
    verified, positivistic philosophers held them to be literally meaningless, as if one had asserted, “’t was brillig, and the slythey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.” Under criticism, the Verification Principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutation into the Falsification Principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle Religious epistemology of being empirically falsified. The fate of religious William Lane Craig language was thought to be no brighter under falsificationism than under verificationism, as became evident at a famous Oxford University symposium on “Theology and Falsification” held in 1948. "Enlightenment critiques of the reasonableness of religious belief point to defects not so much in At the symposium Antony Flew borrowed a story religious belief as in the conceptions of told several years earlier by John Wisdom knowledge uncritically adopted as the basis of concerning two explorers who came upon a patch these critiques. Maybe religious knowledge looks of flowers in a jungle clearing. One explorer was dubious because we have the wrong idea about convinced that the flowers were tended by a what it is to know something and how we know gardener. In the ensuing days, however, despite what we know." --C. Stephen Evans and Merold the explorers’ every effort to find him, no gardener Westphal, Christian Perspectives on Religious was ever detected. To save his hypothesis, the Knowledge. one explorer was progressively forced to qualify his original hypothesis to the point that the Introduction hypothesized gardener must be invisible, intangible, and undetectable. To which the other In Religious Epistemology we encounter the finally replied, “Just how does what you call an intersection of traditional epistemology with the invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener newly burgeoning field of Philosophy of Religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemology and Christian Belief
    W1J63 (2001) 151-82 REVIEW ESSAY EPISTEMOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF K. SCOTT OLIPHINT I. Review The long-awaited third volume of Alvin Plantinga's warrant series has arrived, and those who have looked forward to its publication will not be disap- pointed.1 Coming some seven years after the first two books in the series, this volume, being sufficiently different in its intent and subject matter, lives up to its already established reputation. It is vintage Plantinga— lucid, cogent, humor- ous, technical, enlightening, challenging, and entertaining—a combination rarely found in books of philosophy. Given constraints of space, the review section of this article will not give the book the attention and credit that it deserves. I will focus my discussion on the central thesis of the book in chapters six through nine and will, regrettably, skip over much of the rest. Part – will include the substance of my own comments and questions. First, then, a review of the material, then some questions, com- ments, and concerns. Plantinga sets out to answer the question, "Is Christian belief intellectually acceptable?" In attempting to answer that question, he provides a crucial dis- tinction with regard to objections to Christian belief, a distinction between de facto and de jure objections. Defacto objections are objections to the truth of Chris- tian belief. Even more prevalent, however, have been de jure objections. "These are arguments or claims to the effect that Christian belief, whether or not true, is at any rate unjustifiable, or rationally unjustified, or irrational, or not intellec- tually respectable, or contrary to sound morality, or without sufficient evidence, or in some other way rationally unacceptable, not up to snuff from an intellec- tual point of view" (ix).
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of the Sensus Divinitatis and Its
    THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SENSUS DIVINITATIS AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PROPAGATION OF THE CHRISTIAN GOSPEL: CASE STUDIES OF THE DIVINE SENSE IN WESTERN CHRISTIAN HISTORY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF ANCIENT HISTORY MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY BY JAMES EDWARD GIBSON B.A., B.D., Dip. Teach, M.A., S.T.M. SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA MARCH, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . .. ..9 Chapter I. PLATO (circa 424 – 399 BC) and the Early Church Fathers . 14 II. THOMAS AQUINAS (1224-1274) and the Scholastics. 45 III. JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564) and Reformation Theology. 70 IV. JONATHAN EDWARDS (1703-1758) and Evangelicalism . 104 V. JOHN HENRY NEWMAN (1801-1890) and Catholicism . 141 VI. ALVIN PLANTINGA (1932- ) and Reformed Epistemology . 181 CONCLUSION . 231 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 246 The history of Christian thought has presented several varied concepts of how the Divine and human minds are related. The chapters of this thesis are six successive case studies of this ―divine sense‖ in western Christian thought. Research interest began about John Calvin‘s particular version: the sensus divinitatis (the sense of the divine). Initial efforts were to exposit its meaning and then discover from where the idea developed. Calvin sought to reproduce a biblical outlook. So the trail was expected to trace back to biblical starting points. Strangely, just immediately after the forming of the New Testament, Calvin‘s exact concept is missing. There is in early Christian centuries not an absence of any ―divine sense‖ – just that of Calvin‘s particular version. Research direction adjusted to take stock of the varied concepts represented across Christian history and via six case studies set out the development of the ―divine sense‖.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Dissertation
    VU Research Portal What Can be Known about God is Plain Taber, T.M. 2018 document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in VU Research Portal citation for published version (APA) Taber, T. M. (2018). What Can be Known about God is Plain: A Reformed-Epistemological Response to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. E-mail address: [email protected] Download date: 02. Oct. 2021 VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT What Can be Known about God is Plain A Reformed-Epistemological Response to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad Doctor of Philosophy aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr. V. Subramaniam, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van de promotiecommissie van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid op dinsdag 22 mei 2018 om 15.45 uur in de aula van de universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105 door Tyler Madden Taber geboren te Okmulgee, Oklahoma, USA i promotor: prof.dr.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT the Argument from Divine Hiddenness: an Assessment Ross Parker, Ph.D. Mentor: Trent Dougherty, Ph.D. the Argument From
    ABSTRACT The Argument from Divine Hiddenness: An Assessment Ross Parker, Ph.D. Mentor: Trent Dougherty, Ph.D. The argument from divine hiddenness against God’s existence has become one of the most important atheistic arguments in the contemporary philosophical literature. In this dissertation I offer an assessment of this argument. Specifically, I provide some needed conceptual clarity to the discussion of the argument from hiddenness and respond to various strands of the contemporary discussion of the argument. In the first chapter I argue that the argument from hiddenness is best understood as a family of arguments, and I give an account of what binds these arguments together. In the second chapter, after surveying extant presentations of arguments from hiddenness, I provide a conceptual map of various ways an argument from hiddenness can be presented. I then in the third chapter I develop a Schellenbergian argument from the existence of inculpable nonbelief which serves as the focus of my critical evaluation. In the fourth chapter I address the relationship between that argument from evil and the argument from hiddenness. Chapters five and six offer critiques of two recent attempts to respond to the argument from evil. Then in the seventh chapter I develop my own response to the Schellenbergian argument from hiddenness, arguing that God would be justified in allowing temporary inculpable favorably disposed nonbelief because of various goods that make possible or are made possible by the existence of nonbelief. Copyright © 2014 by Ross
    [Show full text]
  • Mcnabb, Tyler Dalton (2016) Closing Pandora's Box: a Defence of Alvin Plantinga's Epistemology of Religious Belief
    n McNabb, Tyler Dalton (2016) Closing Pandora's box: a defence of Alvin Plantinga's Epistemology of Religious Belief. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/7587/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] Closing Pandora’s Box: A Defence of Alvin Plantinga’s Epistemology of Religious Belief Tyler Dalton McNabb BA, MA Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of PhD School of Humanities College of Arts University of Glasgow June 2016 © Tyler Dalton McNabb 2016 i To Eden, Elijah, and Ezra May the content contained within this work aid you in the development of your faith. Autumn Priscilla May God grant us many more years and many more adventures. The City of Glasgow May you flourish by the preaching of His Word and the praising of His Name. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ ii ABSTRACT CLOSING PANDORA’S BOX: A DEFENCE OF ALVIN PLANTINGA’S EPISTEMOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF I argue (1) that Alvin Plantinga’s theory of warrant is plausible and (2) that, contrary to the Pandora’s Box objection, there are certain serious world religions that cannot successfully use Plantinga’s epistemology to demonstrate that their beliefs could be warranted in the same way that Christian belief can be warranted.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching the Reformations
    Teaching the Reformations Edited by Christopher Metress Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Religions www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Teaching the Reformations Special Issue Editor Christopher Metress MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editor Christopher Metress Samford University USA Editorial Office MDPI AG St. Alban-Anlage 66 Basel, Switzerland This edition is a reprint of the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Religions (ISSN 2077-1444) in 2017 (available at: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions/special_issues/reformations). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: Author 1; Author 2. Article title. Journal Name. Year. Article number, page range. First Edition 2017 ISBN 978‐3‐03842‐522‐9 (Pbk) ISBN 978‐3‐03842‐523‐6 (PDF) Articles in this volume are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY), which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles even for commercial purposes, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book taken as a whole is © 2018 MDPI, Basel, Switzerland, distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Table of Contents List of the Contributors ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACTS - Global Philosophy of Religion Conference 2021
    ABSTRACTS - Global Philosophy of Religion Conference 2021 Bakinaz Abdalla - University of Birmingham, UK From the One, Many Things Come into Existence: A Jewish Perspective on the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity The doctrine of divine simplicity was central to medieval philosophical theology. To say that God is simple is to say that God is free from all sorts of parts. This also means that God maintains aseity, since His essence does not involve parts on which His existence would be contingent. One major critique of the DDS in modern discourse considers the conviction central to monotheistic religions that God is the intelligent Creator of all existents. Supposing that God’s creative acts proceed from wisdom, His essence would accordingly involve multiple thoughts correspondingly with the diversity of existents that He creates. Medieval Jewish philosophers were aware of this difficulty. Yet, they earnestly attempted to demonstrate the coherence of the DDS and its compatibility with the conviction that God is the First Cause of existence. The proposed paper aims to reflect on some problematic issues with attempts to this effect and eventually reconstruct solutions from within the medieval Jewish philosophical tradition. The textual basis for this purpose will be a treatise written by the 13th Jewish philosopher Isaac Albalag, Sefer Tiqqun ha-deot [the Emendation of the Doctrines]. Despite Albalag’s avowed support of the DDS and his attempts to redress flawed arguments for God’s simplicity, many of his metaphysical opinions imply that the divine essence involves conceptual parts. To spare Albalag from the charge of incoherence, I reconstruct two solutions from his dispersed discussions of God’s existence, knowledge, and causal relation to the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Christian Apologetics
    Introduction to Christian Apologetics Edwin Chong Fall 2007 Faith EFC, Fall'07 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2 (NIV) Faith EFC, Fall'07 2 1 Overview What is apologetics? Why is apologetics important? Faith and reason Implications of atheism Theistic arguments Faith EFC, Fall'07 3 Text and Prerequisites William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Revised Edition, Crossway Books, 1994. Partly reflects my own “tastes” in Christian apologetics. This class assumes TTP-like training. In particular, Christian maturity. (Otherwise could be “shocking” to some!) Faith EFC, Fall'07 4 2 Introduction Faith EFC, Fall'07 What is Apologetics? Greek apologia: a defense A branch of Christian theology that seeks to provide a rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith. Primarily a theoretical discipline. Not training in the art of answering questions, or debating, or evangelism. Faith EFC, Fall'07 6 3 That’s Apologetics? Bound to be disappointing to some. Many are just not interested in the rational justification of Christianity. What’s more “useful” is to know answers to questions like, “…” Practical matters are logically secondary to the theoretical issues and cannot occupy the center of attention. (Of course, practical matters must occupy some of our attention!) Faith EFC, Fall'07 7 Why Theoretical Issues? Christians need to grasp a wider picture of Western thought and culture, rather than concentrate exclusively on their immediate evangelistic contacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Herman Dooyeweerd & Alvin Plantinga Philosophy And
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at VU Herman Dooyeweerd & Alvin Plantinga Philosophy and Rationality in the Reformed Tradition Bas Hengstmengel 2 Wie alles sich zum Ganzen webt, eins in dem andern wirkt und lebt! Wie Himmelskräfte auf und nieder steigen Und sich die goldnen Eimer reichen. Goethe, Faust , I, 447-450 3 Introduction This text has originally been written as a master thesis in philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The thesis was written under the supervision of Prof.dr. Ger Groot and Prof.dr. Roel Kuiper, with support of Dr. Henri Krop. Because of size limitations some material was excluded in the original version. In the current version this material has been included. Also some grammatical corrections have been made. Although my thought on some points has developed since, the text still represents my thought at that moment. This text has been translated into Dutch, and is currently being edited and extended. It will be separately published as a book by Buijten & Schipperheijn publishers (Amsterdam) in the Verantwoording-series of the Association for Reformational Philosophy. The publication is scheduled in the end of 2011 or early 2012. Maybe an English version will follow. We will see. Special thanks to prof. Alvin Plantinga (University of Notre Dame, U.S.), prof. Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary, U.S.), prof. Andries Raath (University of the Free State, South Africa), prof. Jaap Klapwijk (emeritus Free Universiy, Amsterdam), prof. René van Woudenberg (Free University, Amsterdam) and the Association for Reformational Philosophy (Soest) for kindly making available relevant materials.
    [Show full text]
  • To Natural Theology
    REVISITING THE ‘REFORMED OBJECTION’ TO NATURAL THEOLOGY MICHAEL SUDDUTH San Francisco State University Abstract. In the present paper I address two significant and prevalent errors concerning opposition to natural theology within the Reformed theological tradition. First, contrary to Alvin Plantinga, I argue that the idea of properly basic theistic belief has not motivated or otherwise grounded opposition to natural theology within the Reformed tradition. There is, in fact, a Reformed endorsement of natural theology grounded in the notion that theistic belief can be properly basic. Secondly, I argue that late nineteenth- and twentieth-century Reformed criticisms of natural theology do not constitute an objection to natural theology as such but rather an objection to natural theology construed in a particular way. I explore the nature of this objection and its compatibility with an alternative understanding of natural theology. The so-called ‘Reformed objection’ to natural theology has been the focal point of a plethora of essays in Anglo-American philosophy of religion since the emergence of the Reformed epistemology movement spearheaded by Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff in the early 1980s. ‘Natural theology’ in this context refers to the project of developing rational arguments for the existence and nature of God. The ‘Reformed objection’ refers to opposition to this project associated with the Calvinistic or Reformed streams of the Protestant theological tradition. In this paper I will revisit the Reformed objection to natural theology. My primary goal in this paper is to put the Reformed objection to natural theology in proper perspective, and this requires correcting two significant and long-standing misunderstandings concerning Reformed opposition to natural theology.
    [Show full text]