• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reformed Epistemology

Ella S.

Ella S.

*temp banned*
Has anyone here heard of "reformed epistemology" where the belief in God is taken as a foundationalist basic belief?

Does anyone know the arguments for this?

I lean quite heavily towards Rationalism, almost to the point of solipsism, so I find the idea of God being a basic belief to be intriguing.

I am wondering if anyone here knows any arguments for this, especially any that might include a defense from (or against) Rationalism.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ella S. said:
Has anyone here heard of "reformed epistemology" where the belief in God is taken as a foundationalist basic belief?

Does anyone know the arguments for this?

I lean quite heavily towards Rationalism, almost to the point of solipsism, so I find the idea of God being a basic belief to be intriguing.

I am wondering if anyone here knows any arguments for this, especially any that might include a defense from (or against) Rationalism.
Click to expand...

Come across the core idea in other contexts.
In broad terms it is related to the idea of justification. Personally I don't believe in that. Even as a skeptic I do a non-relgious version of this one: Fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing).

As far as rationalism and solipsism go to me, they end up being in effect tautologies that doesn't solve the problem of objective reality is in itself.
I personally do epistemological and methodological solipsism, but I avoid metaphysics. As for objective reality I treat it as somewhat epistemologically fair(that is a variant of God in the end). I,e, you and I are real, but that is in the end fideism.

Hope it makes sense. :)
 
Ella S.

Ella S.

*temp banned*
mikkel_the_dane said:
Come across the core idea in other contexts.
In broad terms it is related to the idea of justification. Personally I don't believe in that. Even as a skeptic I do a non-relgious version of this one: Fideism (the view that religious belief is not rational, but that we have non-epistemic reasons for believing).

As far as rationalism and solipsism go to me, they end up being in effect tautologies that doesn't solve the problem of objective reality is in itself.
I personally do epistemological and methodological solipsism, but I avoid metaphysics. As for objective reality I treat it as somewhat epistemologically fair(that is a variant of God in the end). I,e, you and I are real, but that is in the end fideism.

Hope it makes sense. :)
Click to expand...

I see reason as a methodology, not a faith-based belief or tautology.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ella S. said:
This is a decent article outlining arguments against Reformed Epistemology and I am interested to see if anyone has any decent rebuttals to it.
Click to expand...

Calvin’s claim, then, is that God has created us in such a way that we have a strong tendency or inclination toward belief in him. This tendency has been in part overlaid or suppressed by sin. Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same natural spontaneity that we believe in the existence of other persons, an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many find belief in God difficult or absurd. The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is in an epistemically substandard position—rather like a man who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks she is likely a cleverly constructed robot and has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness. Although this belief in God is partially suppressed, it is nonetheless universally present. (Plantinga and Wolterstorff. Faith and Rationality. University of Notre Dame Press, 1983, pg. 66.)
Click to expand...

From @Rival s link.

Doesn't ground sin as fundamental so God could be different in regards to sin.
 
Ella S.

Ella S.

*temp banned*
mikkel_the_dane said:
Okay, then in practice the limit is that in some case reason is individual based on what is taken for granted as fundamental.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in the sense that the information available to one person is different from the information available to the next.

This also means that we are subject to illusion, misinformation, and bias, which can undercut our reason.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ella S. said:
I agree with this in the sense that the information available to one person is different from the information available to the next.

This also means that we are subject to illusion, misinformation, and bias, which can undercut our reason.
Click to expand...

Well, if you mean information about what matters then yes. We have hit the fact value distinction.
 
Ella S.

Ella S.

*temp banned*
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, but nobody so far has solved the is ought problem.
Click to expand...

It depends on which version of the is-ought problem you go by.

As a functionalist, I don't see the is-ought problem as particularly relevant. I think, by definition, one "ought" to perform one's function well. This is a fairly common rebuttal to the issue.

Although I am not sure what relevance this has to our discussion or this thread?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Ella S. said:
It depends on which version of the is-ought problem you go by.

As a functionalist, I don't see the is-ought problem as particularly relevant. I think, by definition, one "ought" to perform one's function well. This is a fairly common rebuttal to the issue.

Although I am not sure what relevance this has to our discussion or this thread?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you have solved so it works for you. To me it is that one's function is not another's function and not the same well.
 
Ella S.

Ella S.

*temp banned*
mikkel_the_dane said:
As long as you don't treat our as universal and remember self as individual, then we agree 100%.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, I am not an Existentialist. I believe that the function of a human being is ultimately derived from evolutionary biology and can be studied like any other fact.

I'm more interested in how you derive individual purpose.
 
vulcanlogician

vulcanlogician

Well-Known Member
From Rival's Link:

"Calvin’s claim, then, is that God has created us in such a way that we have a strong tendency or inclination toward belief in him. This tendency has been in part overlaid or suppressed by sin."

Miiiiighty convenient. We get to work in a little commentary on "sin" and how it blinds us to fundamental reality. Plantinga has argued some okay ideas. But I'm not a fan of this one. "If you only had your thetan levels managed properly, you'd realize that Scientology is the way."

Plenty of atheists have lived simple, sagely lives. What was their sin that kept them from perceiving basic reality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top