sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alvin Plantinga, Faith and rationality, Reformed epistemology, Religious epistemology

Article #90 25 Verbum et Ecclesia

s ’ (2000c) seem to Original Research Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et lantinga (page number not for citation purposes) P lvin A and other (see Plantinga 1967). With to

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION philosophers of have proliferated considerably (Stump response

: A Vol. 30 No. 2 PageVol. 1 of 5 ormed f stilts

re on

Philosophers of religion can learn much from biblical scholars and a detailed acquaintance with biblical criticism is crucial for the philosophical examination of Judaism and . Philosophical reflection on the epistemology of biblical criticismbiblical is criticism lackingturn out very differently and theif biblical findings of scholarship is subjected to analysis and questioning by philosophers. During the greater part of the 20th century, biblical scholarship and the of were religion not considered to have much in common. However, towards the end a of movement the of millennium, a representative, primary as few Plantinga Alvin Christian With dialogue. philosophers interdisciplinary for of need the religion suggested called ‘’ (RE) these philosophers claimed to findings. non-traditional its and criticism historical of foundations the on reflection philosophical be concerned with what been not have arguments Plantinga’s that suggests scholar) biblical (qua author the article, this In they considered to be taken the seriously because of his and lack the resulting failure to grasp the of and contents of the hermeneutical debates that have raged within biblical for the past 200 years. Since the middle of the 20th century reference to Biblical Studies, RE’s primary concern seems to be the ‘unorthodox’ results of historical- critical biblical scholarship. Allegedly, what critical biblical scholars are doing goes against the grain of ‘traditional perspectives’ and, according to some proponents of RE, renders the Bible contemporary useless philosophical for theology (Plantinga 2000c:374–421; Stump 1985). As a result, exponents some have RE taken biblical scholarship to task in their writings and, in doing so, invitation have to issued interdisciplinary an dialogue (1985) Stump – what with concern something a of which out result a I as partly agree invitation, the up is taking to long motivated myself overdue. However, I am considers the two main motives for the discussion, which are the following: • • When taken out of context, these claims seem relatively unproblematic. However, when considered along with the details of the many RE proponents put forward about the Bible, these for motives wanting to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue become problematic. On closer are inspection they actually driven by the ideological agenda contemporary Christian of society: fundamentalism (see what Carroll 1997 has on ‘biblical’ Christianity). become This is lamentably all perhaps exactly why many too critical biblical theologians have not bothered familiar to enter into dialogue with in these philosophers of religion (aside from the other lamentable – that sentiment fashionable of in 20th-century the Biblical Theology; anti-philosophical see Barr 1999:146–171). However, given the rising popularity of fundamentalism in lay spirituality and as an Old Testament scholar an interest in the philosophy who of religion, I cannot takes set this opportunity for interdisciplinary discussion lightly aside. It is my conviction that while the can and should be applied biblical to (something I do myself), it is hermeneutically problematic when one does this while at the same failing to take seriously the philosophical implications religion. of the history of (Israelite) not are (2000c) Plantinga and (1985) Stump by made criticism biblical against charges the that is fact The separation wholly correct. the It is not since the case that criticism biblical scholars have biblical not paid attention of to their epistemological years 200 last the that fact the of view in especially assumptions, of biblical and dogmatic theology with Gabler (and the subsequent distinction between Old and New Testament theology with Bauer) has led to intricate hermeneutical discussions, the ramificationsepistemological and philosophical issues of which neither Stump (1985) nor Plantinga 2000:896). As a result it has become period earlier an to contrast in that meant increasingly has This theology. philosophical and religion of philosophy difficult to abstract make was it if only respectable philosophically a clear was religion on distinctionreflection that betweenfelt philosophers when the and generic, philosophers of religion today feel free to examine these are philosophically interesting in their own right any (Stump 2000:896). As part of this expansion of in any the religion, beyond look to since begun have religion of philosophers some loci, religious-philosophical of Systematic Theology to the presuppositions of Biblical topics to discuss. In doing so, a number of them Theology have expressed a concern with what they perceive to for philosophically interesting be serious philosophical problems pertaining to the epistemological assumptions of biblical criticism 1998:81–98). (e.g. Plantinga 2000c:374–421; Stump 1985; Ward To be sure, not all philosophers of religion have biblical been so criticism. interested The in – ones or have in any question pains as with are Reformed – associated Epistemology with (RE), the the views movement of commonly which (Protestant) are referred philosophers encountered to such in as the Alvin writings Plantinga, of William Christian Forest Alston 2006; and Hoitenga 1991). Nicholas As Wolterstorff a (see school of thought, argument RE presented had by Alvin its Plantinga beginnings in in his the book so-called parity strangely is Bible the of handling philosophical RE’s of exponents two these precise, be To appreciate. 1 undamentalism F ee: OpenJournals School Basic of Sciences, http://www.ve.org.za at: This article is available ve.v30i2.90 5 pages. DOI: 10.4102/ et Ecclesia Art. 30(2), #90, epistemology’, Verbum Faculty Humanities, of UniversityNorth-West Triangle (Vaal Campus), South Africa Correspondence to: GerickeJaco e-mail: [email protected] Postal address: 1174, Box P.O. 1900, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa Keywords: philosophy religion; of biblical studies; reformed epistemology; ; fundamentalism Dates: Alvin Platinga’s reformed stilts: A response to ‘Fundamentalism on Gericke, J.W., 2009, 2009, Gericke, J.W., How to cite this article: Published: 30 Oct. 2009 Accepted: 04 2009 Aug. © 2009. The© 2009. Authors. Licens Publishing. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Received: 022009 Apr. 1 Author: Gericke W. Jaco Affiliation: http://www.ve.org.za Original Research Gericke

reminiscent of what one found in pre-critical Reformed • A rejection of classical – For REP the Orthodoxy from the time before Gabler, when dogmatic in God is held to be properly basic and not something to be biblical ‘eisegesis’ was practiced bereft of any real historical inferred from more fundamental beliefs. consciousness or of the possibility of a real appreciation of the • A rejection of internalism – REP is externalist and argues fact that in classical for proper functionalism and with reference to are anachronistic in the context of ancient Israelite religion. And human cognitive apparatus (with an ad hoc error theory of while ‘Reformed’ might mean for many believing today transworld depravity to account for unbelief). exactly what Calvin supposedly believed centuries ago, many Calvinist systematic-theological convictions are of little use These tenets are evident from the writings of Wolterstorf (1976; when confronted with the conceptual challenges contemporary 2001), Plantinga (1964; 1983; 2000a–c) and Alston (1991). As such non-fundamentalist Biblical Theology has to deal with (contra they have been subjected to critical assessments which, according Childs 1992:72). to Clark (1990), Sennett (1992) and DeRose (1999a) have been put forward by both theistic and atheistic philosophers of religion. However, up to now no Old Testament scholar that I am aware The major objections are as follows (inter alia): of has bothered to respond to the charges of RE, to the effect that • REP’s naïve-realist appeal to religious is their views are still considered intellectually respectable in many rejected, since most philosophers feel the concept of a philosophical circles (in biblical scholarship the movement is sensus divinitatus on which the parity argument is based is mostly unknown). So, out of a concern to expose the fallacies of essentially contested. the sort of philosophy of religion one might call ‘fundamentalism • REP is too latitudinarian, permitting the rational acceptability on stilts’ (i.e. making outdated biblical-theological conceptions of virtually any belief and giving rise to the so-called Great seem respectable with the aid of philosophical jargon) I have Pumpkin Objection. According to this line of critique decided to accept the invitation of Stump (1985) and others and (alluding as it does to a scenario in the Peanuts cartoon to devote this article to a discussion of why I believe some of where the character Linus sincerely in the return of RE’s philosophy of religion is seriously damaged by a failure to the Great Pumpkin to the pumpkin patch each Halloween), appreciate the problems of Old Testament theology. I have no if RE is consistently applied without double standards it pains with the concept of a ‘Reformed’ epistemology per se but allows belief in any sort of far-fetched entity to be justified I do believe that in the writings of some philosophers of religion as simply foundational or basic. Anyone can claim that their it really involves little more than a disguised attempt to sneak own beliefs are properly basic without the need for any fundamentalist theology back into the academia (in a way not dissimilar from what one finds in the biblical theology of Brevard justification in holding them. Therefore, the Great Pumpkin Child; see Barr 1999:437). In order to show what exactly it is that Objection to Plantinga’s of proper basicality intends I consider to be problematic in RE’s philosophical views about to show that there must be something wrong with RE if it the Bible (and in view of the limitations of space incumbent in allows such wayward beliefs to be warranted as basic. P the writing of this article), I therefore have decided to provide a • RE has been rejected because it has been perceived to be cursive and introductory critical assessment of the fundamentalist crypto- (if one defines fideism as the view that belief biblical-theological foundations of the philosophy of religion of in God may be rightly held in the absence of or RE’s leading exponent, Alvin Plantinga. argument). All of these objections have as their focus point REP’s central ALVIN PLANTINGA’S REFORMED claim, namely that belief in God is properly basic (cf. Swinburne Article #90 EPISTEMOLOGY (REP) 2001:203–214). Of course, Plantinga has responded thoroughly to these critiques (see Plantinga 1983:16–93; 2000c). His response Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga, in turn itself invited a counter-response (see DeRose 1999b). In Alvin Carl Plantinga was born in 1932 and is a contemporary the end, the bottom line of the philosophical critique concerns American philosopher known for his work in epistemology, REP’s presupposition that there is religious , when the and the philosophy of religion. In 1980 already of such truth is exactly the bone of contention and Plantinga was described by Time magazine as ‘America’s so cannot be taken for granted. This is why evidentialist and leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God’ (‘Modernizing presuppositionalist theistic philosophers of religion have also the case for God’, 1980:55-56). He was portrayed in that same faulted REP for its commitment to ‘negative’ , in that article as a central figure in a ‘quiet revolution’ regarding the not only does REP offer no for supposing that respectability of belief in God among academic philosophers. More recently, many American Christians looked to him as or Christianity is true (contra so-called positive apologetics), their representative in the apologetic attempt to respond to the it also leaves no tool for discriminating between justified and controversial ideas of the atheist in his The God unjustified constituent beliefs (Swinburne 2001:212). delusion (Dawkins 2006). Plantinga has moreover delivered the P prestigious Glifford Lectures on three separate occasions and his To be sure, the above summations of RE ’s views and the philosophy of religion is characterised by defences of theological philosophical critique against it are of necessity cursory and ideas from the Dutch Reformed tradition in which he was raised. cannot do to the intricacies and details of the debates Not surprisingly, many of his writings incorporate discussions that have raged in and around the movement since its inception about the Bible and biblical scholarship (e.g. Plantinga 2000c). (see Forest 2006; Suddith 2000). What is relevant to the present Plantinga is currently the John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy discussion is the fact that past critiques of Plantinga have tended at the and somewhat of a cult-figure to focus almost exclusively on problems in the philosophical P in American conservative Reformed apologetics. ‘superstructure’ of RE with little real attention being paid to the biblical-theological ‘base structure’ of his arguments. And yet REP as such can be construed as exemplifying the following it cannot be disputed that the latter is ultimately foundational philosophical superstructure, which is itself characterised by a to the former – its raison d’être, if you will. But if this is indeed number of negative epistemological tendencies: the case, it means that whatever the merits of Plantinga’s sophisticated philosophical rhetoric, if it can be shown that P • A rejection of – RE argues that religious his biblical foundations are both mistaken and/or nothing of belief is rational and justified even if there is no to the sort, the entire modus operandi of REP will have been fatally support its truth claims. It also argues that evidentialism is compromised. Given that philosophers of religion have already inconsistently applied and self-refuting. demonstrated the conceptual fallacies in REP’s philosophical P • A rejection of radical fideism – RE is very concerned to show superstructure, the discussion to follow is therefore meant as that and are compatible and that belief in God a supplemental critique aimed at exposing related fallacies in is rational even without any supporting evidence to back it the biblical-theological base structure on which Plantinga’s up. philosophy is built.

26 Verbum et Ecclesia Vol. 30 No. 2 Page 2 of 5 http://www.ve.org.za (page number not for citation purposes) Article #90 27 Verbum et Ecclesia ’s P the claims P Original Research Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et ’s belief that the Bible is P ’s view of God is biblical; and biblical; is God of view ’s P (page number not for citation purposes) ’s interpretation of the texts are correct. Yet on all three P to be ‘biblical’ in that the is assumed to biblical the course, Of themselves. texts biblical the of that mirror texts are not philosophy and the biblical authors do not discuss religious epistemology – yet even the Old Testament discourse contains epistemological assumptions , about belief and truth. the Now aside nature of epistemological from pluralism that the may of once possibility again rear its ugly head (e.g. in the of Daniel incommensurable and Qoheleth), the fact religious is that it is wrong to assume, as Plantinga does, that the Old Testament is anti-evidentialist. On the contrary, there is ample reason to evidentialism believe that a is ‘soft’ in fact granted in ancient Israelite religion given the nature of the many of default biblical the in epistemology assumptions epistemological pre-philosophical the taken for via and (signs) of whole The narratives. said be can history and divination dreams, audition, theophany, oft-repeated the (see epistemology evidentialist an presuppose to religious the all of all, After know…’). may they that ‘so formula epistemologies that come to , it is difficult to imagine that the prophet Elijah in the narrative where he takes to on similar remotely anything endorsing was the Carmel on Prophets Baal ‘Reformed Epistemology’ (see 1 Ki 18). If that is not an instance there sure, be To is? what Testament, Old the in evidentialism of philosophical is – technically – ‘unbiblical’. philosophical monotheism The second problem follows from the first: What kind of God is it with reference to which Plantinga asserts belief to be properly basic? It is useless to say belief in God is properly basic unless one can specify what the contents of the beliefs about God are supposed to be. But in this Plantinga’s is he philosophy that fact the is of cognisance radically take to failure his by undermined committing the fallacy of . Like all fundamentalists he seems to know nothing (and want to know nothing) of the philosophical problems posed by conceptual pluralism in Old Testament theology or the diachronic variation about in YHWH the in beliefs the history of Israelite seems religion. blissfully In short, unaware he that there ‘biblical’ perspective is on God. So no if it such is the thing ‘biblical’ God reference with as to which belief is and given supposed the to pluralism be in properly Testament the theologians basic, biblical would discourse, supposed like is belief which most to reference with to is it YHWH of Old version know which particular to be properly basic. This suggests that any the recourse that fact to the proper by shipwrecked is justification avoid to basicality of practice actual the since non-informative, essentially is notion God, of notion a with it filling requires God in belief any holding which in turn requires justification forwhich beliefs, of set second-order a Therefore another. over choosingGod one view of Plantinga himself implies is not properly basic, comes into play, and this concerns his belief that a) RE c) RE counts biblical criticism has shown Plantinga is mistaken, and as a result, his entire philosophical superstructure becomes in jeopardy. A third problem concerns RE religion. of another history the brackets religion way of philosophy in which Plantinga’s First of all, Plantinga claims that belief in God is properly basic and that the God with 2000c:384). (Plantinga Bible the of God the him, for conveniently reference to whom belief is Yet such Plantinga’s view is, of YHWH is radically anachronistic conforms and more to the (Aquinas proverbial ‘God in of particular) the than depicted Philosophers’ in ancient to Israelite religion. This any means that the version pre- philosophical of ‘biblical’ conceptions YHWH of as whom is supposed to be YHWH, properly basic, is not even believed by the belief in Plantinga himself. His lofty notions of God in terms of ‘Divine ’, ‘Maximal Greatness’ and ‘Perfect-Being Theology’ are utterly alien with reference to many of the characterisations of YHWH in biblical narrative critical historical (e.g. consciousness on the part of Gn Plantinga on this 18). The absence issue means of an utter lack of awareness of the fact that RE true and coherent is correct; b) RE b) correct; is coherent and true is P P Two (or Two a priori Vol. 30 No. 2 PageVol. 3 of 5 (Plantinga 2000c:384) is itself ‘biblical’. (2000c:374–421; Chapter 12: Chapter (2000c:374–421; ’S ARGUMENTS FOR A P P solely because he considers it to be solely because he considers P presupposes the following ideological P Christian philosophical theology – RE – the reason why the why reason the – Reformed is fundamentalist in but the denial is P a priori grounds that the Bible is historically, ‘BIBLICAL’ EPISTEMOLOGY THE CONTENTS OF THE BIBLICAL- OF THE THE CONTENTS When faith and reason clash: Evolution and the Bible (1991) Warranted Christian belief belief Christian Warranted Scripture is inerrant: the proposes Lord for our belief is what makes we ought to believe. Scripture is no a mistakes; wholly authoritative what and trustworthy He guide to faith and morals. God is not required to make a case. The principal Author Bible of the – the entire Bible – is God himself, not of so much independent a library books as itself but a a central book theme: the message with of the many . By subdivisions unity…”interpret of this Scripture with Scripture.” One can’t what discovering by just passage given always a of the determine the human author intended. an affirmation of basically in philosophical garb; basically Christian apologetics of affirmation an with begin to ‘Reformed’ called is approach epistemological is Plantinga’s notion that it is based on some of the central ideas in Calvinist dogmatics; and an affirmation of fundamentalist – Plantinga assumes on ‘Word the (literally ‘inerrant’ theologically and scientifically of God’). The assumption that the Bible providesThe assumption that the of a unified view theismThe assumption that biblical true is metaphysically The assumption that RE FALLACIES IN RE THEOLOGICAL BASE STRUCTURE OF RE BASE STRUCTURE THEOLOGICAL more) kinds of scripture scholarship), Plantinga’s fundamentalism following: is readily discernable from claims such as the This is a typically the Bible Protestant and biblical fundamentalist interpretation. As confession such, it to on is vulnerable a number of hermeneutical fallacies. criticisms based on related fundamentalist contradicted by what Plantinga himself has actually had to say about the Bible on those occasions when he has ventured across scholarship. biblical mainstream task to take to lines disciplinary In his and • Plantinga foundations, the constituting materials actual the for As RE furthermore endorses belief in the inerrancy of biblical discourse. Because the defence of inerrancy is their consistently main literal but will switch to concern, non-literal readings when fundamentalists are a not literal reading seems problematic from their theological own or scientific, historical point of view. may deny that RE To be sure, Plantinga • • With regard to the put third forward point above, by following Barr fundamentalism in the context of the Biblical Studies (1977; as in popular views 1984), I discourse where it refers do to someone who not reads the Bible in use consistently a literal fashion. the It has term been demonstrated essence that the of fundamentalism is not literalism but the Like most Protestant fundamentalists accusing the rest world of the of not being everyone ‘biblical’ to return [sic] to enough a ‘biblical’ view and on just about every constantly particular calling theological , Plantinga is neither as nor ‘biblical’ as ‘Reformed’ as he thinks. aimed His at discrediting philosophical the work of arguments biblical scholars engaging in historical-critical analysis are riddled with a number of glaring fallacies, stereotypically encountered fundamentalist philosophers of religion. in the writing of all an understand the fallacies of the biblical-theological biblical-theological the of fallacies the understand can we Before base structure, we have Plantinga’s to philosophical understand the superstructure between assumptions text and reality (or ‘referentiality’, about as Barr 1999:38 calls in the relation it). In this regard, RE isomorphisms: • • • http://www.ve.org.za Fundamentalism on stilts: response A toAlvin reformed Plantinga’s epistemology Original Research Gericke

might be other biblical trajectories more amenable to Reformed grammatical for historical criticism. Therefore, Epistemological ideas but my concern lies with those that are Plantinga seems to assume that the problems dealt with in not, particularly in view of Plantinga’s insinuation that his view Biblical Theology (e.g. theological pluralism, the problem of is the only ‘biblical’ one. history, the relation between the testaments, the question of a ‘Mitte’, and the relation to ancient Near Eastern ) only A fourth biblical-theological shortcoming of REP concerns exist if the exegete endorses the ‘evils’ of , , Plantinga’s naïve-realist hermeneutics. The naïveté lies both on evolutionary theory and methodological . But this the level of the practice of biblical interpretation and on the meta- is simply not true and many of the questions biblical scholars level of views on the nature of the biblical materials. With regard ponder are in fact much older than the modern period (known to exegesis, Plantinga (2000c:387) suggests that we should check from Rabbinic sources). Moreover, Plantinga overlooks the fact our interpretations of the text with the text itself, thereby failing that the primary impetus for historical criticism was not the to appreciate the fact that we cannot compare our view with Enlightenment but the Protestant itself (see Hayes the Bible itself, we are always only comparing interpretations & Prussner 1985:1; also see Barr 1999’s critique of Brevard Childs with each other. Therefore it is a priori impossible to check our as crypto-fundamentalist for an analogical situation within interpretation of the Scriptures against the Scriptures absolutely biblical theology). (in a sense analogous to the distinction between the Kantian ‘phenomenon’ and ‘’, the thing-as-it-appears and the A seventh and final for discussion concerns the non- P thing-in-itself). In this Plantinga seems not to have awaken from sequitur involved in the ultimate objectives of RE in the context his ‘dogmatic slumbers’ (to borrow Kant’s reference to himself of the discussion with biblical scholars and the critique of biblical following a reading of Hume) in that on the meta-level he seems criticism. Plantinga thinks that if he can discredit historical criticism and evolutionary theory, then his own fundamentalist unable to distinguish between God / the Bible as such and his and creationist hermeneutics win by default and can be taken (Plantinga’s) views (or ) on God / the Bible (his dogmas seriously again (2000c:398). In this he seems to forget that proving or ideology). Plantinga imagines himself and RE to be loyal to historical criticism wrong is not the same as proving historical- and fighting for the Bible as such when in fact he is not so much grammatical hermeneutics correct – that is another task on its defending the Bible for its own sake but struggling to place his own. The same is the case with regard to his raging against own Reformed Fundamentalist view of the Bible beyond the evolution – even if Plantinga could somehow demonstrate a fatal possibility of critique. problem in the theory, this does not vindicate . The latter still needs to be justified as part of a separate project and The fifth problem – and this point follows from the previous one imagining that it gets a second chance if evolution is someday – Plantinga argues along typical fundamentalist apologetic lines left behind is as naïve as thinking that astrology gets another that one either assumes beforehand that the Bible is the Word of shot at it if a contemporary astronomical theory is discredited. It God or merely fallible human (Plantinga 2000c:388). does not work that way – one has to go forwards, not backwards, Moreover, he believes that the problems of biblical criticism and creationism and fundamentalism have had their day. To are in fact generated by having the wrong presuppositions discredit historical criticism is not to have done away with the (Plantinga 2000c:389). This seems to me to involve a category problems of biblical criticism or with the justified critique of mistake in that here Plantinga has failed to distinguish between fundamentalist and creationist hermeneutics. After historical the descriptive and evaluative modi in biblical interpretation. criticism and evolution have had their day, we will require Historical biblical scholarship is supposed to be a descriptive a new theory, not a reversion to what has had its chance and

Article #90 enterprise in which one’s personal beliefs about the Bible need remains outdated. That is why biblical scholarship developed not be given up but should be bracketed lest they interfere with literary and social-scientific criticism and why modifications Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et the reading process of discovering what the Bible itself means, in evolutionary theory came about following discoveries in whether this meaning coheres with our own dogmas or not. To genetics. Plantinga, in his critique of historical criticism and be sure, purely descriptive reading remains only an ideal – like evolutionary perspectives, seems to be battling a straw man in itself – and I am not assuming an outdated positivist that he engages with older varieties of these views that have hermeneutics. Yet the fact is that in working descriptively it is not little to do with these perspectives in their current formats. necessary to decide beforehand what the Bible is in the context of systematic theology, since that would be presumptuous. In the end, reading between the lines of Plantinga’s pains Plantinga therefore confuses the operations of biblical and with biblical criticism, it eventually becomes readily apparent dogmatic theology and to insist that beliefs about inspiration be that Plantinga’s entire case is in fact little more than a huge endorsed or denied from the outset involves mistaking exegesis demonstration of special pleading. Time and again it is implied for doctrinal reflection. Certainly, we all have assumptions in this that the main reason Plantinga cannot and will not accept a regard, but the entire point of critical reading is the willingness critical approach to the text is not because he really understood to test these assumptions in view of the evidence. Yet Plantinga’s what biblical criticism is all about, but rather because of what own presuppositionalist hermeneutics show that he is more he takes to be its implication – that he would have to take leave interested in safeguarding his own fundamentalist assumptions of his own cherished personal ‘properly basic’ dogmas about than allowing them to be modified should the nature of the the text. This is why Plantinga will not be taken seriously by biblical data require it. In wanting to prejudge the issue on mainstream biblical theologians. He is always arguing on a meta- inspiration, Plantinga conveniently forgets that the question of level, merely aghast at the revolutionary findings without ever meaning precedes the question of truth (as really coming to grips with the details of the research that led has taught us), and that without this insight no corrective from to those findings in the first place. Like most fundamentalists, the Bible on dogmas are possible to begin with. Plantinga has a very distorted and oversimplified view of critical biblical scholarship, assuming all those practising it to The sixth problem is that Plantinga claims that his own readings conform to the demonised profile of the critical scholar he has of the Bible follow a ‘traditional’ approach (Plantinga 2000a:385 constructed from a combination of isolated individuals and out and passim). However, not only is any appeal to tradition in of a paranoia concerning anything approaching ‘liberalism’. The itself a potential logical fallacy in the justification of truth claims lack of understanding in this regard is not a virtue and from the in the philosophy of religion, but the problem is also that the perspective of biblical theologians is simply doing major damage concept of a singular ‘traditional’ reading is meaningless, for to his philosophical claims. there never was a single way of reading the text anywhere in the history of interpretation. Moreover, the reason why Plantinga is CONCLUSION so concerned with what he takes to be the ‘traditional’ approach From the discussion above it should be clear that in raging is his mistaken belief that the problems of biblical criticism against what he calls ‘historical biblical criticism’, Alvin were generated when biblical interpreters exchanged historical- Plantinga is not really in a position to speak on these issues –

28 Verbum et Ecclesia Vol. 30 No. 2 Page 4 of 5 http://www.ve.org.za (page number not for citation purposes) Article #90 29 Verbum et Ecclesia , , pp. , pp.896-898, , pp.895–896, , P. Lang, New Original Research Verbum et EcclesiaVerbum et Oxford UniversityOxford Warranted Christian belief by A. (page number not for citation purposes) Faith and :andReason Faith beliefand Reason within the bounds of religion, and the story of epistemology, Warranted Christian belief, belief, Christian Warranted of God, Oneworld Publications, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Reformed epistemology and Christian apologeticsChristianReformedepistemologyand Modality, probability, and rationality: A critical , pp. 16–93, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy viewed 04 March 2009, from http://academics.smcvt.edu/ philosophy/faculty/Sudduth/3_frameset.htm 203–214. Religious StudiesPlantinga’, 37, Oxford. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Cambridge University Press, New York. & N. Wolterstorff (eds.), (eds.), Wolterstorff N. & in God Dame. Christianthe Bible, Scholar’s Review (September XXI:1 1991) E. Craig (ed.), New York. Routledge, 319–325, (ed.), New York. Routledge, Press, New York. examination of Alvin Plantinga’s York. philosophy religion and traditional Christianity’, 1), viewed Truth 02 March Journal 2009, from (vol. http://www.leaderu.com/ truth/1truth20.html The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy London.Routledge, Swinburne, R., 2001, ‘Review of Ward, K., 1998, Wolterstorff, N., 1976, Wolterstorff, N., 2001, Plantinga, A., 1983. ‘Reason and belief inin God’, A. Plantinga When faith Plantinga,and 1991, reason A., clash: and Evolution Plantinga, A., 2000a, ‘Arguments for the ’, in Plantinga, A., 2000b, ‘Religion and epistemology’, in E. Craig 2000c, Plantinga,A., Sennett, J., 1992, Stump, E., 1985, ‘Modern biblical scholarship, philosophy of Stump, E., 2000, ‘Religion, philosophy of’, in E. Craig (ed.), 2000, M., Sudduth, Vol. 30 No. 2 PageVol. 5 of 5 , viewed 10 will never get never will P alism, SCM Press, as outlined above to P , viewed 18 February ’s invitations to debate P , 5 April, 1980, pp. 55–56. pp. , 5 April, 1980, and come up with a non- P Old Testament theology: Its history , State University of New York Press, ceiving God: The epistemology of religious REFERENCES Hebrew Bible and ancient versions: Selected From From to Plantinga: An introduction to God and other minds: A study of the rational Per Voodoo Voodoo epistemology, viewed 8 March 2009, Wolf Wolf in the sheepfold: The Bible as problem for Are Are Christian beliefs properly basic? Biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments, Religious epistemology Escaping from fundament The concept of biblical theology: An Old Testament in its current format might be or become. As long as the experience, Cornell University Press, New York. London. perspective, SCM Press, London. theology, SCM Press, London. SCM Press, London. May 2009, from http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/basic.htm 2009, May from http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/voodoo.htm 2009, epistemology/ from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion- essays Gordon, of Robert Ashgate, New York. P. and development, SCM Press, London. Reformed Epistemology Albany. justification of belief in God, Cornell UniversityYork. Press, New P see that Plantinga has mistaken the to out philosophy turns he of so, doing religion In apologetics. for Christian fundamentalist be neither biblical nor Reformed (or even really ‘philosophical’) in his arguments. It hardly matters how sophisticated, coherent, interesting, orthodox, complex or convincing the philosophical and specificallyRE epistemological arguments in justifying fundamentalist alternative, they will never be taken seriously by seriously taken be never will they alternative, fundamentalist anyone acquainted with the discussion in mainstream biblical scholarship. Of course, being fundamentalist, RE anywhere as they are always based on the assumption that it is the biblical critics who are in need of changing their mind. Even forthcoming. so, let it not be said that no response has been need one that out pointing by conclude to like therefore would I only be cognisant of the fallacies in RE the issues concerning the nature and interpretation of the Bible were, of course, not really meant seriously. Plantinga never for actually of possibility the consider to intends really moment one learning something from biblical scholars practicing historical criticism. Rather, he has already decided apparent beforehand problem, fact, that interpretation or piece no of evidence can be true if it clashes with what he already believes on the level of opinion personal of reconsideration serious No . personal RE on debates Hence envisaged. seriously ever is Barr, J., 1977, Fundamentalism, SCM Press, London. 1977, Barr, J., Barr, J., 1984, Barr, J., 1999, Carroll, 1997, R.P., Childs, 1992, B.S., Return 1990, reason, to Eerdmans,Clark, K.J., Grand Rapids. Dawkins, 2006, The R., God delusion, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. DeRose, 1999a, K., Alston, W.P., Alston, 1991, W.P., DeRose, K., 1999b, Forest, P., 2006, Gordon, R.P., 2006, Hayes, J. & Prussner 1985, F., Hoitenga, D., 1991, ‘Modernizing Time the case for God’, Plantinga, A., 1967, and will not be taken seriously if he does – if only because shows no he sign of understanding the nature and contents of the problems that biblical scholars themselves have been grappling with for the past 200 years. Unless proponents of RE (and other philosophers of religion interested in scholars and concerned dialogue with biblical criticism) with can get beyond biblical the fundamentalism inherent in RE assumptions underlying the philosophical jargon are with such riddled biblical-theological fallacies as demonstrated above, Plantinga’s version of RE will be considered by many to be no more than fundamentalism on stilts. http://www.ve.org.za Fundamentalism on stilts: response A toAlvin reformed Plantinga’s epistemology