Phil of religion- basic beliefs

He thinks that lots of religious beliefs are basic beliefs- many are based on some sort of religious experience. E.g. you have done something wrong and you have the impression that God knows. These are basic beliefs but are they grounded?If it is the case that you have normally functioning cognitive systems which are capable of detecting such things in the world then we answer will be yes. His argument is that we do have such a system, a perceptual system which is capable of detecting God's action in the world. Our religious beliefs are justified if they are rooted in certain religious experiences. Background to Plantinga's thinking comes from Calvin.

How does this apply to religion?

There are certain beliefs which are rational beliefs, but they do not look rational on the foundational account. E.g. perceptual beliefs, we believe what we see, these sorts of beliefs are basic beliefs because they are not based on another belief However, according to the foundationalist it is not properly basic because it is not self-evident (we could be Brains in a vat etc) on the foundationalist ground, lots of the beliefs we have about what is going on around us are not entirely reasonable/ properly basic. •Memory beliefs- not based on another belief we just remember it, also doesn't meet the criteria and thus is not a properly basic belief according to foundationalism. •Beliefs about other minds- when we are talking to someone we think we know what they are feeling etc, but this also is not a properly basic belief. •These sorts of beliefs look as if they are reasonable things to have but they fail the standard of properly basic beliefs which the foundationalist demands, but they aren't unreasonable, so we shouldn't believe the foundationalist.

How else could we challenge foundationalism?

Is it right to say that religious belief is acquired via a properly functioning cognitive system? In order for them to be grounded we must have a capacity to perceive God's actions in the world (e.g. him talking to us or disapproving of us)- Do we really have this capacity; do we have good reason to think that we lack this capacity? Plantinga seems to assume that this is a capacity which humans have but we do not know this for sure.

How might we challenge Plantinga?

• However, these theories lack any supporting evidence. There is no data from cognitive psychology which supports these theories, there is no failure in cognitive function in those who are religious. There are no grounds for thinking that there are any cognitive deficits in religious believers.

How might we challenge these theories?

There will be some beliefs which you have on the basis of other beliefs which you have. We have a chain of beliefs which are all based on each other. There will also be some beliefs which are not based on other beliefs, at the end of the chain there will be one belief which does not have another belief supporting it. In some cases, these beliefs will be based on perceptual information.

However, how can we challenge this?

Evidentialism- only believe things which you have evidence for. This puts pressure on religious belief, there does not seem to be supporting evidence for a belief in God.

Recap evidentialism.

We want to know what makes beliefs rational- evidentialist and foundationalists give a good account, It is either reasonably based on a further belief or it is properly basic (self-evident and beyond doubt) However- this is quite demanding, lots of us have belief on the bases of testimony or something we have heard, which is not wholly justified. What makes a belief reasonable to hold might not be something which is realistic.

So, what do evidentialist's and foundationalists say about what makes a belief rational?

If you are an evidentialist you want your beliefs to be based on evidenced arguments. The most rational kind of structure you can have for your beliefs is a network where each belief is justified by a further belief but at the bottom you get a collection of beliefs which are not justified by any other beliefs, these are rational. The foundation layer needs to be properly supported and rational.

So, what do evidentialist's want our beliefs to be based on?

Religious beliefs look difficult to fit into our set of rational beliefs. They do not seem to be self-evident of incorrigible, on this approach, religious belief does not look like it will have a very sympathetic reception.

What are the consequences for religious beliefs?

It seems that when we are trying to find out what is a reasonable belief, the theories are either too generous or not generous enough. Plantinga's theory seems to be too generous. It allows for obviously irrational beliefs to be rational. The great pumpkin objection- the great pumpkin in some deity figure who appears on Halloween. If we can be reasonable in having religious belief, where do we draw the line? Is it reasonable to believe in the great pumpkin? Allows for some obviously irrational beliefs to be rational.

What could be a different challenge to Plantinga?

Descartes meditation- Descartes wanted to find a secure foundation for all our knowledge. We should find a belief which is entirely beyond doubt, if we get rid of all our perceptual beliefs etc., what we end up with is 'I think therefore I am' - this is the foundational principle which is the basis for all our beliefs to be derived.

What did Descartes say about foundationalism?

Freud-religious belief is the product of wish fulfilment, the need for support in the harsh realities in the world. Religious judgements are the product of wish fulfilment, a type of cognitive dysfunction. Marx- religion is perverted thinking which results from an improper social order. Once the social order is modified then the need for religion disappears. Religion is the result of a disordered thinking

What did Freud and Marx argue?

Plantinga proposes the idea of grounding- what you need for a belief to be reasonable is that it is formed in a grounded way- Grounded= the manner in which you acquire that belief is properly functioning. What makes a perceptual belief grounded is if your eyesight etc are properly functioning. Memory- if you have a problem remembering things, this would not generate a reasonable belief. If your memory is working fine, then your judgements which are based memories are grounded. Plantinga- allows that your beliefs can be grounded in having a normal functioning perceptual/ belief acquiring system. A more generous idea about what makes a belief reasonable.

What is Plantinga's argument

Basic belief- a belief which is not based on another belief.

What is a basic belief?

The Foundationalist position seems self-defeating, any proposition you belief is only justifiable basic if it is self-evident and beyond doubt. But, this proposition is a belief which the foundationalist has. This belief is itself not self-evident or beyond doubt. The belief that the foundationalist has fails the standard of what is needed to be a basic belief. Foundationalism fails by its own standards.

What is a possible argument against foundationalism?

Foundationalism- the theory that all of your beliefs come down to a set of foundational beliefs. These must meet a certain standard, must be self-evident, cannot be doubted (incorrigible), they need to meet a high standard.

What is foundationalism?

A properly basic belief- a basic belief which is appropriate to have. The beliefs must be derived in a suitable way, e.g. believing that Elvis is alive because I had read it on the internet, this is poorly based and thus it is not a properly basic belief.

what is a properly basic belief?