Alvin Plantinga notes that if what Christians believe is true, their beliefs are warranted. It follows, he argues, that the only decisive objection to Christian belief is a de facto one: an argument that shows that what Christians believe is false. We disagree. A critic could mount a direct attack on the Christian’s claim to warrant by offering a more plausible account of the causal mechanism giving rise to belief, one that shows that mechanism to be unreliable. This would represent a powerful de jure argument against Christian belief.
Quick Links
- Book
- 200 (or so) Arguments for Atheism
- Index: Assessing Theism
- Why Mainstream Scholars Think Jesus Was A Failed Apocalyptic Prophet
- What's Wrong With Plantinga's Proper Functionalism?
- Draper's Critique of Behe's Design Argument
- The Failure of Plantinga's Free Will Defense
- 100 Arguments for God Answered
- Thomistic Arguments for God Answered
- On a Common Apologetic Strategy
- On Caring About and Pursuing Truth
- A Priori Naturalism, A Priori Inerrantism, and the Bible
Dawes and Jong on Defeating the Christian's Claim to Warrant
Dawes, Gregory and Jonathan Jong. "Defeating the Christian's Claim to Warrant", Philo 15:2 (2013). Here's the abstract:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Two Naturalistic Arguments for Why There is Something (Concrete) Rather Than Nothing (Concrete)
Here is a sketch of two arguments for why there is anything (concrete) rather than nothing (concrete), which are based on, or at least inspi...
No comments:
Post a Comment