Article Analysis Essay on Is Belief in God Properly Basic

Introduction

The article has five main arguments. The first one is that if theism is rational, then it is because of the presence of adequate evidence, or because the belief is properly basic. The second line of argument is that the faith in God is not properly basic. The third argument is that if the belief in God is rational, then it is because there is sufficient evidence to support it. The fourth line of reasoning is that theism doesn't have adequate evidence, which therefore means that the belief in God is not rational.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Plantinga argues that theism is rational because religious beliefs are properly basic. Plantinga starts by describing the current state of affairs in regards to religion. On the one side, there are the philosophers who dismiss theistic beliefs on the grounds of evidentialism while another section has supported theistic belief based on the existence of sufficient evidence to support it. According to evidentialism, as described by Plantinga(1981), Christians are justified to believe in God if they have adequate proof of his existence ( p.1, lines 12-14). Having properly basic beliefs is rational, but the faith in God does not fall in the category of properly basic beliefs. The author explains the evidentialist line of argument that says only views that are self-evident or those which have been inferred from properly basic beliefs are exempted from the requirement of evidence - the author questions why the same privileges are not extended to the faith in God. According to Plantinga, all arguments against the basicity of belief in God fail because theism as a properly basic belief is rational and doesn't require additional belief s to support it.

According to Plantinga(1981), the justification for God's existence lies in the nature in which divine art reveals itself in, "innumerable and yet distinct and well-ordered variety of the heavenly host"(p. 7, lines 5-7). The author further argues that God instilled in humans the ability to perceive his work all around them. The senses or skills, which God instilled in humans functions well in normal conditions to produce a properly basic belief. The cognitive faculties aim at the truth of God's existence. That within them, humans have the disposition to believe that God created the vast universe. The author, therefore, bases his argument on the presence of the right conditions as the justification for properly basic belief. The author also supports his argument by turning evidentialism against itself. Evidentialism says only the ideas that are incorrigible qualify as basic beliefs, but there is no evidence to support that line of argument (Plantinga, 1981, p. 10). The theory fails to defend itself because there is nothing to back up the statement. Plantinga argues that the Christian's belief in God is warranted.

The author builds his argument of belief in God as properly basic based on the idea that theists can know without evidence. The perception of God originates from the cognitive faculty installed in humans. As the author explains, properly fundamental beliefs are occasioned by justifying circumstances rather than being inferred from other ideas that humans have. Events such as knowing when one is wrong needs forgiveness or guilty forms the Christian belief in God. The Christian belief emerges from the disposition that God made the world, and that he is to be thanked (Plantinga, 1981, p. 7, line 21).

Reflection

I was able to make some sense out of Plantinga line of argument. Theism is just as rational as believing that I ate breakfast. One might argue that that line of thinking sets precedence for any belief to qualify as basic. But as Plantinga demonstrates, that is not true because the argument cannot be applied to other cases such as belief in the Great Pumpkin. My understanding of Plantinga's argument is that for an idea to qualify as basic it needs to have grounds on which it stands on. For example, when a person believes that they had supper this morning, their belief comes from the memory of taking breakfast that morning, and he or she doesn't have a reason of thinking that their brain is playing tricks on them. As a result, the belief of "I ate breakfast this morning" is based upon the grounds that I recall having a meal in the morning. I cannot produce evidence that I had breakfast, but I have a reason for thinking that I had breakfast in the morning. The same cannot be said about the Great Pumpkin. The same line of thinking extends to the belief "that person is angry." The belief emanates from certain characteristics or behaviors displayed by the person that leads me to believe that he or she is angry. I am unable to prove without any reasonable doubt that the person is upset, but I have reasons to think he is angry based on what I am seeing and hearing. However, the Great Pumpkin lacks such grounds because one cannot claim to have seen one or interacted with one. If they happen to have seen one or associated with one, they may have a reason to believe their mind is playing tricks on them, or that they are being tricked.

It is therefore appropriate for some fellows to accept theological beliefs as primary. Based on what the author has revealed, the argument of evidentialism cannot support itself and thus cannot be applied to discredit the faith in God. Based on what I have read, I agree with Plantinga because evidentialism cannot provide evidence that beliefs are rational only if they have proof. There is no way to prove that opinions that don't have evidence are not sensible or true. There is the possibility of a belief without evidence having a high level of truth in it. Failure to provide evidence cannot be used as sufficient grounds for dismissal of a view as untrue or irrational. The whole idea of evidentialism is that one cannot hold a belief in something if they cannot provide evidence of it. There are some beliefs that one cannot get rid of them by merely trying to do so. Notions such as "the world has existed for a long time" (Plantinga, 1981, p. 3, line 15). One might not have the evidence, that is within his or her power, to prove that the world has existed for a long time, but still hold the belief as primary. The same applies to theological conclusions. I, therefore, think that it is appropriate for some people to accept religious beliefs as primary without taking all beliefs as rational. The existence of a view is not sufficient ground to warrant is as logical. Instead, only ideas that are built on certain prepositions can stand as valid. Rational thoughts require the knowledge or belief of some other proposition that supports the matter in question.

References

Plantinga, A. (1981). Is belief in God properly basic. Nous, 15(1), 41-51.