1. Is
religious
belief
properly
basic?
Main
ques5on-­‐
Is
argument
irrelevant
to
belief?

2. Plan5nga
and
Reformed
Epistemology
l This
argument
involves
a
rejec1on
of
the
claims
of
classical
founda1onalism
-­‐
which
claims
that
founda5onal/basic
beliefs
must
be
self-­‐
evident
or
infallible.
l Plan5nga
suggests
that
religious
belief
can
be
considered
a
basic
belief.
Belief
in
God
can
be
basic
for
a
person.
l Said
simply-­‐
A
person
can
be
ra1onally
jus1fied
in
believing
in
God
even
if
he
has
no
good
arguments
(of
the
theological
kind)
for
the
existence
of
God.
l Plan5nga
goes
so
far
as
to
say
that
a
person
can
know
God.

3. The
grounds
for
religious
belief
l Plan5nga
says
that
belief
in
God
is
basic;
but
that
it
has
grounds
and
can
be
jus0fied.
l He
argues
this
point
using
several
examples:
-­‐ A
sense
of
wonderment
about
the
universe
can
give
rise
to
the
belief
that
it
was
created
by
God
-­‐ -­‐
Reading
the
Bible
can
lead
some
to
believe
that
God
is
speaking
to
them
personally
-­‐ -­‐
A
feeling
of
guilt
(for
doing
the
wrong
thing)
can
give
rise
to
the
belief
that
God
disapproves
of
what
one
has
done.

4. The
grounds
for
religious
belief
l For
each
of
these
examples,
Plan5nga
argues
that
there
is
a
jus1fying
or
grounding
situa1on
which
gives
rise
to
belief.
l In
each
case
the
jus1fied
belief
is
not
directly
that
God
exists.
The
belief
which
is
considered
basic
is
that
the
universe
was
created
by
God
and
so
on.
l Plan5nga’s
sugges5on
is
that
religious
belief
is
more
to
do
with
beliefs
about
God,
rather
than
belief
in
God’s
objec5ve
existence.
However,
the
laRer,
entails
the
former
and
this
poses
a
philosophical
problem.

5. Is
argument
irrelevant
to
religious
belief?
l Simply
put-­‐
Plan5nga
says
no.
Someone
who
has
been
brought
up
to
believe
in
God
may
experience
pain
and
suffering
and
as
a
result
ques5on
their
basic
belief
in
God.
A
reflec5on
on
the
problem
of
evil
and
suffering
is
en5rely
relevant
to
whether
this
person
upholds
their
belief
or
rejects
it.
l Similarly,
someone
who
does
not
believe
in
God
might,
through
ra5onal
argument,
come
to
accept
that
there
is
a
God.
l Essen5ally,
Plan1nga
argues
that
one
does
not
have
to
have
arguments
in
order
to
believe
in
God.

6. Main
strength
of
the
argument
l Plan1nga
is
correct
in
saying
that
we
oAen
believe
in
things
which
cannot
be
easily
proven.
He
argues
that,
as
far
as
proof
goes,
religious
belief
is
no
beRer
nor
worse
off
than
other
forms
of
beliefs
that
we
accept
without
evidence.

7. Main
cri5cism
of
the
argument
The
Great
Pumpkin
Objec5on
-­‐ However;
there
could
be
any
number
of
beliefs
that
someone
might
claim
as
basic-­‐
Santa,
voodoo,
supernatural
beings,
the
great
pumpkin
that
returns
every
Halloween.
Could
these
also
be
considered
basic?
-­‐ Plan5nga
says
that
religious
belief
is
different
because
it
has
grounds,
but
whilst
he
may
think
that
belief
in
something
like
the
‘great
pumpkin’
is
not
properly
basic,
someone
else
might.
-­‐ Beliefs
in
witches
or
many
gods,
could
be
basic
for
a
whole
culture-­‐
surely
by
his
own
standards
such
beliefs
should
be
considered
ra5onal?

8. Con5nued
l It
is
hard
to
be
en5rely
convinced
by
Plan5nga’s
argument,
even
though
it
is
generally
right
to
say
that
one
can
know
something
even
if
one
cannot
prove
it
to
others.
l The
argument
should
rather
emphasize
the
role
that
belief
plays
in
deepening
one’s
faith
and
that
it
is
when
it
does
that
we
might
be
able
to
say
that
someone
knows
God.