![\"Plantinga2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/Plantinga2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAlvin Plantinga (b. 1932): widely regarded as the greatest living Christian philosopher, in 2009.<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons <\/a>\/\u00a0<\/span>Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/span><\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n If I\u2019ve heard it once, I\u2019ve heard it a thousand times from atheists and agnostics: \u201chow can I believe in a \u2018god\u2019 without direct empirical evidence<\/strong>? Unless \u2018he\u2019 appears to me personally or rearranges \u2014 before my eyes \u2014 the\u00a0Statue of Liberty into a giant sentence that reads \u2018God exists\u2019 then I have no reason whatever<\/em> to believe in such a supposed deity.\u201d It\u2019s a bit of a mantra or sloganistic maxim, I guess. The atheist learns to say this 4,817,022 times, just as the TM practitioner says \u201com\u201d over and over.<\/p>\n This is the first myth that many of them swallow uncritically: that empiricism is the only<\/em> method to achieve high epistemological assurance<\/em>; in effect, the only form of knowledge<\/em>.\u00a0What they think is a knockout punch and profound observation is demonstrably an utter falsehood. The usual atheist mantra also exhibits (I must say) considerable ignorance as to what has happened in the field of philosophy since World War II \u2014 with logical positivism essentially meeting an ignominious death. I have dealt with\u00a0this preliminary consideration in several papers of mine:<\/p>\n God,\u00a0Empiricism,\u00a0&\u00a0Atheist\u00a0Demands\u00a0for\u00a0\u201cEvidence\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Dialogue\u00a0w\u00a0Atheist\u00a0on\u00a0First\u00a0Premises<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Must\u00a0Christianity\u00a0be\u00a0Empirically\u00a0Falsifiable?<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Atheists\u2019\u00a0Unreasonable,\u00a0Unrealistic\u00a0Demands\u00a0for\u00a0Proof\u00a0of\u00a0God\u2019s\u00a0Existence\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n On\u00a0Whether\u00a0Atheism\u00a0is\u00a0Inherently\u00a0More\u00a0Rational &\u00a0Scientific, \u2026\u00a0Than\u00a0Christianity<\/a><\/p>\n The\u00a0Atheist\u00a0Fairy\u00a0Tale\u00a0of\u00a0\u201cChristianity\u00a0vs.\u00a0Science\u00a0and\u00a0Reason\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Dawkins & Double\u00a0Standards\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0\u201cReligion\u00a0vs.\u00a0Science\u201d\u00a0Mentality<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Ten\u00a0Common\u00a0Atheist Claims\u00a0About\u00a0Science,\u00a0God\u2019s\u00a0Existence, \u2026\u00a0Epistemology<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Dialogue\u00a0w\/\u00a0Polymath\u00a0Agnostic\u00a0on\u00a0Root\u00a0Premises<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Dialogue\u00a0w\u00a0Atheist\u00a0About\u00a0Miracles\u00a0&\u00a0Openness\u00a0to\u00a0Evidences\u00a0and\u00a0Proofs<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n I have argued (using the reductio ad absurdum<\/em> technique and satire and sarcasm), that atheism utilizes even more<\/em> faith, and acceptance of axioms (that are unproven by definition) than Christianity does:<\/p>\n Atheism:\u00a0the\u00a0Faith\u00a0of\u00a0\u201cAtomism\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Clarifications\u00a0re:\u00a0Atheist\u00a0\u201cReductio\u201d\u00a0Paper<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Now, it is quite fair and reasonable for the agnostic or atheist, granting the above, to proceed to ask: \u201cYou\u2019ve given a good critique of a tunnel-vision,\u00a0philosophically and epistemologically naive,\u00a0\u2019empiricism only\u2019 view; but what is the basis of your non-empirical<\/em> belief in God and Christianity?\u201d This aspect is not something I have written much about, precisely because it is very deep waters, and others have done a far better job of explaining it than I could ever hope to do.<\/p>\n I did enjoy one great recent dialogue on \u201cproperly basic beliefs,\u201d and took a shot at presenting a popular, layman\u2019s version of the old ontological argument (one of the classic theistic arguments):<\/p>\n Dialogue\u00a0w\u00a0Agnostic:\u00a0God\u00a0as\u00a0a\u00a0\u201cProperly\u00a0Basic\u00a0Belief\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cArmstrong\u00a0Ontological\u00a0Argument\u201d\u00a0for\u00a0God\u2019s\u00a0Existence<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Ontological\u00a0Argument: Discussion w a\u00a0Philosophy\u00a0Grad\u00a0Student\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n The latter three posts are\u00a0the\u00a0closest I came to directly treating these topics of \u201cnon-empirical justification for Christian beliefs,\u201d\u00a0but they barely scratched the surface. The materials recommended below\u00a0go into it in the greatest depth.<\/p>\n I haven\u2019t dealt in depth with this issue, myself, mostly<\/em> because Christians aren\u2019t demanding<\/em> it. People become Christians, by and large, for many reasons, but rarely is it the case that they do as a result of the conclusion of a complicated philosophical chain of reasoning, arguing for God\u2019s existence. They do for reasons that they<\/em> may not be able to personally articulate, but which are valid and able to be defended by philosophers. Philosophy of religion is the pastime or purview of atheists, agnostics, and apologetics- or philosophically-minded \u201cegghead\u201d-type Christians: the sort of stuff that occupies late-night discussion in dorms of Christian colleges. No one beyond those groups cares much about it.<\/p>\n Since apologists like myself have the task of meeting people (usually Christians, as it turns out) where they are at<\/em>, and providing answers to roadblocks or stumbling-blocks to faith, I\u2019ve been doing that, and these issues simply haven\u2019t come up very much.<\/p>\n Now I am in a venue (Patheos) where atheists are much more prevalent, and are interacting with some of my stuff and that of other Christians who post on the site. So it is now coming up more often. Sheila Connolly, a friendly agnostic and former Christian who appears to me to be sincerely seeking to find answers to these sorts of important questions, has been pressing me to offer her something solid. Here are her own words:<\/p>\n The real debate between Christianity and atheism\/agnosticism is about epistemology, not specific facts, but no one wants to talk about epistemology. They say empiricism is bad, but no one is able to explain how else we are supposed to know about anything, considering humans take in information only through our senses. I don\u2019t know if people are at a loss for an argument or if they\u2019re just bored with the topic, but they always bail when we hit epistemology, calling me \u201cexcessively skeptical\u201d or \u201cunwilling to believe.\u201d I\u2019m willing to believe, I just don\u2019t see that these beliefs are justified.<\/span><\/p>\n If atheism is something you want to discuss (and you seem conflicted about it; you\u2019ve posted a lot about it lately but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s your main area of expertise), then I really recommend you focus on epistemology. How are we to know the right thing to do is to believe on less evidence than would be acceptable in science or history? What are your methods for separating the true from the false, and do they really work in other cases at separating the true from the false?<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve been talking about epistemology all along. I have said (several times in comboxes in various atheist threads) that if you want to understand Christian epistemology and our rationale for belief in God, read Plantinga, Polanyi, and Cardinal Newman. I\u2019ve already had a long dialogue with an agnostic about Plantinga and properly basic belief. Yet you say I have \u201cbailed\u201d from epistemological discussion. Empiricism is great, not \u201cbad.\u201d It\u2019s just not all there is<\/em>, and anyone who is more than a novice in philosophy knows that.<\/p>\n I read your post on Plantinga and commented there and elsewhere on your blog about the topic of basic beliefs, but no one answered my objections.<\/span><\/p>\n To repeat them: given that many intuitive beliefs turn out to be wrong \u2014 for instance, you might think you recognize a face in a crowd but it\u2019s actually a stranger; or you think someone is watching you but no one is \u2014 how can you check these beliefs? In all other cases, you can consider questions like, \u201cWhat sense-information leads to this belief? What predictions can I make based on this belief, and if I test them, will they come true?\u201d But with God-belief, it is admitted not to come through the senses (unless we posit a sixth \u201cGod sense\u201d) and no one is willing to predict anything based on it, or to test it. In short, I can understand how a person could *have* a basic belief, but I don\u2019t see it as demonstrated that a person ought to *trust* a given basic belief.<\/span><\/p>\n My second question is, what should people do who do not have this experience? For me the existence of God is not a properly basic belief. So how do you expect me to move from nonbelief to belief? Why does God expect me to move from nonbelief to belief while neither providing empirical evidence nor providing an interior sense of his presence? And most of all, why do you bother\u00a0<\/em>with apologetics if it all comes down to basic beliefs? Those who have an interior experience of God will believe regardless of what you say, and for those who don\u2019t, you acknowledge that you don\u2019t have sufficient proof of any other kind.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t read all your comments everywhere, because I don\u2019t have time to read all of Patheos (does anyone??) but if you\u2019d like to refer me to what you\u2019ve written elsewhere, just drop a link. If you\u2019ve got it, I\u2019ll read it.<\/span><\/p>\n This particular thing I haven\u2019t written much on (and certainly\u00a0not in the depth it deserves and requires), which is why I keep appealing to Alvin Plantinga<\/strong>, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman<\/strong>, and Michael Polanyi<\/strong>, who have<\/em>\u00a0done so.<\/p>\n MICHAEL POLANYI<\/strong><\/p>\n Here is an article about Michael Polanyi<\/a>\u00a0(1891-1976) and \u201ctacit knowledge\u201d<\/a>. The Polanyi Society<\/a> collects a lot of materials about him, including many papers<\/a>. Of particular interest for our present topic is \u201c<\/a>Tacit\u00a0Knowing:\u00a0Its\u00a0Bearing\u00a0on\u00a0Some\u00a0Problems\u00a0of\u00a0Philosophy\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and \u201cFaith and Reason.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0See also the Polanyi entry<\/a> in the Philosophy Research Base, his books on Amazon<\/a>, articles about him<\/a>, and a biography<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n ALVIN PLANTINGA<\/strong><\/p>\n Alvin Plantinga<\/a> (b. 1932) is considered the leading Christian philosopher in the world. Most of his books (see them on Amazon<\/a>) are available online for free (such as at Goodreads<\/a>), and here is a long list of his papers<\/a>, able to be read online. Of particular relevance to this discussion are his papers, \u201cOn \u2018Proper Basicality'\u201d<\/a>, \u201cMaterialism and Christian Belief\u201d<\/a>, \u201cEpistemic Justification\u201d<\/a>, and \u201cThe Foundations of Theism.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0A second collection <\/a>offers some more paper, including the enticing title, \u201cIntellectual Sophistication and basic Belief in God.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0See also a great interview of Plantinga in The New York Times<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n There are also a number of good You Tube videos of Dr. Plantinga on these questions, such as \u201cTheism, Naturalism, and Reality\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(+ Part 2<\/a>), a Q & A on Science and Religion<\/a>, a debate with Daniel Dennett <\/a>on whether science and Christianity are compatible, another lecture<\/a> on the same topic, and\u00a0\u201cAn Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0PLantinga used to teach at my alma mater, Wayne State University in Detroit.<\/p>\n JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN<\/strong><\/p>\n Cardinal Newman<\/a>\u2018s 1870 book, Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent<\/a><\/em>\u00a0(available online) is very dense and heavy, but if you want epistemology, it\u2019ll fill you to the brim with that, and then some, till it\u2019s coming out of your ears. It\u2019s an extended philosophical treatment of the (mostly non-empirical) warrant or justification for Christian (and Catholic) belief, including his famous treatment of the \u201cIllative Sense.\u201d\u00a0His arguments anticipated the \u201ctacit knowledge\u201d concept of Michael Polanyi by 80 years. I believe this work is one of the best treatments of philosophy of religion or Christian epistemology ever penned. It would challenge anyone and provide much intellectual stimulation, agree or disagree.<\/p>\n WILLIAM ALSTON<\/strong><\/p>\n Another renowned Christian philosopher who writes about the basis for Christian experience and belief is the late William Alston<\/strong><\/a> (1921-2009). I had the pleasure to meet him once, when I hung out at the Wayne State Univ. Philosophy Club). He specializes<\/em>\u00a0in epistemology. Here is a brief biography<\/a> describing his work, a more lengthy one<\/a>, \u00a0and two of his\u00a0papers: \u201cReligious Experience and Religious Belief\u201d<\/a>, \u201cWhat is Naturalism?\u201d<\/a>. See also his books on Amazon<\/a>.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n If Polanyi, Plantinga, Newman, and Alston don\u2019t convince an atheist or agnostic (about anything<\/em>), I certainly won\u2019t come within a million miles<\/em> of doing so (in which case, I\u2019ll take a pass\u00a0and Spend my valuable time doing something else). These sources, are, I believe, the very best ones I can recommend to atheists and agnostics, who\u00a0are truly seeking to understand<\/em> (not just shoot down)\u00a0<\/em>the rational and epistemological basis for Christian belief, and want to read the best Christian philosophical arguments to be had.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932): widely regarded as the greatest living Christian philosopher, in 2009. [Wikimedia Commons \/\u00a0Creative Commons\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported\u00a0license] * * * * * If I\u2019ve heard it once, I\u2019ve heard it a thousand times from atheists and agnostics: \u201chow can I believe in a \u2018god\u2019 without direct empirical evidence? Unless \u2018he\u2019 appears […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":4037,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,112],"tags":[267,1190,258,619,294,436,254,1186,1192,1189,1187,1188,442,1193,1185,454,1184,1191],"class_list":["post-4034","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-philosophy-science","tag-agnosticism","tag-alston","tag-atheism","tag-christian-epistemology","tag-christianity-and-science","tag-empiricism","tag-faith-and-reason","tag-illative-sense","tag-justification-for-belief","tag-newman","tag-plantinga","tag-polanyi","tag-positivism","tag-properly-basic-belief","tag-religious-experience","tag-spiritual-experience","tag-tacit-knowledge","tag-warrant-for-belief"],"yoast_head":"\n