![]() Part III is geared a little more toward the believer as he begins to give an epistemic account of Christian belief based on a Calvin/Aquinas model. If there is no such environment, then charges of irrationality make no sense.Īll of that is of interest to both theists and non-theists, I think. A belief has warrant “if and only if it is produced by cognitive faculties functioning properly in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at the production of true belief”. What exactly do people mean when they throw out words like “irrational” or “justification”? How exactly are people flouting their epistemic duties in believing Christianity? And, as the main point of the book, what is warrant? It is the difference between true belief and knowledge. I will have to come back and read this again after I finally make it through my chronological readings to Kant. He basically argues that there are two main interpretations of Kant and that neither one shows that our concepts or language cannot refer to God. I did not interact very much with part I. Whether are not it is actually true is left up to others to argue. Plantinga sets out to show that Christian belief is warranted, that there is not anything irrational about believing it, even in a basic way. ![]() ![]() Everywhere there are charges of irrationality or charges that Christian belief is not justified. Warranted Christian Belief is highly relevant to today's intellectual climate and covers a lot of ground. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |