Volume 3, Issue 2 (10-2022)
پژوهش های مابعدالطبیعی 2022, 3(2): 91-118 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nazarnejad N. A Critique of Plantinga's Anti-Evidentialist Approach from the Perspective of Applied Philosophy of Religion. پژوهش های مابعدالطبیعی 2022; 3 (2) : 4
URL: http://mi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-179-en.html
URL: http://mi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-179-en.html
Alzahra University
Abstract: (1391 Views)
Abstract
The current study examines Plantinga's anti-evidentialist position through the perspective of applied philosophy of religion, illustrating how epistemological positions can have detrimental practical effects. The article's main claim is that entering the postmodern era and distancing thinkers like Plantinga from general rationality and lowering its standards, including the duty to ground claims on sufficient evidence, has eventually caused reason to be excluded from religious dialogue or to talk about a kind of regional rationality. The consequence of this transformation is the obstruction of dialogue between followers of various religions on the one hand, and believers and non-believers on the other, and lastly, the deprivation of human beings of common and agreed-upon criteria for criticizing each other's beliefs. When the issue of obstruction of dialogue and critique is combined with the fact that there is a close link between beliefs and actions, the problem becomes even worse; because without general criteria for criticizing beliefs, it will be impossible to criticize the actions resulting from them, and all groups, including extremist groups, will be able to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions and justify their possible crimes in practice.
The current study examines Plantinga's anti-evidentialist position through the perspective of applied philosophy of religion, illustrating how epistemological positions can have detrimental practical effects. The article's main claim is that entering the postmodern era and distancing thinkers like Plantinga from general rationality and lowering its standards, including the duty to ground claims on sufficient evidence, has eventually caused reason to be excluded from religious dialogue or to talk about a kind of regional rationality. The consequence of this transformation is the obstruction of dialogue between followers of various religions on the one hand, and believers and non-believers on the other, and lastly, the deprivation of human beings of common and agreed-upon criteria for criticizing each other's beliefs. When the issue of obstruction of dialogue and critique is combined with the fact that there is a close link between beliefs and actions, the problem becomes even worse; because without general criteria for criticizing beliefs, it will be impossible to criticize the actions resulting from them, and all groups, including extremist groups, will be able to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions and justify their possible crimes in practice.
Article number: 4
Keywords: applied Philosophy of religion, evidentialism, extremism, Plantinga, postmodernism, rationality.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Philosophy
References
2. Audi, Robert (ed.), (1999) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Second Edition.
3. Bunnin, Nicholas and jiyuan Yu, (2009) the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication, UK.
4. Dancy, Jonathan, Ernest Sosa, and Matthias Steup. (ed.), (2010) A Companion to Epistemology, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
5. Hamilton, Andy, (2014), Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Wittgenstein and On Certainty, Routledge Philosophy GuideBooks, Routledge.
6. James William, (1897), << The Will to Believe>>, New York: Longmans Green & Co. (From Pojman, Philosophy of Religion)
7. Lippert‐Rasmussen, Kasper, Kimberley Brownlee and David Coady (2017) A Companion to Applied Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, UK.
8. Magee, Bryan, (2001), Story of Philosophy, DK, PUBLISHING, INC.
9. McIlhenny, Ryan, (2007) Academic Journals Database, »The Postmodern Condition as a Religious Revival: A Critical Review of William Connolly’s Why I am Not a Secularist« ..., journaldatabase.info › journal › issn1449-775.
10. Peterson, Michael & others (2014), Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings 5th Edition, Oxford University Press, New York.
11. Plantinga, Alvin & Michael Bergmann, (2015) Religion and epistemology, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, version2, Doi: 10.4324/9780415249126-K080-2.
12. Plantinga, Alvin & Nicholas Wolterstorff, (2004) Faith and Rationality, University of Notre Dame, the United States of America.
13. Plantinga, Alvin, (1993) Warrant: The Current Debate, print ISBN 0195078624, Doi: 10.1093/01950786224.001.0001.
14. Plantinga, Alvin, (1987) <>, From Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy of Religion_ An Anthology, Wadsworth, Inc. California, 1987.
15. Plantinga, Alvin, (1981) Is Belief in God Properly Basic? Noûs, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 41-51, Published by: Wiley.
16. Pojman, Louis P. (2008) Philosophy of Religion_ An Anthology, Thomson Higher Education, fifth edition, Printed in the United States of America.
17. Popper, Karl R., (1994) The Myth of the F r a m e w o r k, In defense of science and rationality, Routledge, London.
18. Provenzola, A. Thomas, (2000) »The Rationality of Religious Belief in a Postmodern Age«, A Dissertation at Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois.
19. Proudfoot, Michael, (2010) The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy, Routledge, London and New York, Fourth Edition.
20. Taylor, Charles, (2003) Varieties of religion today: William James Revisited, Harvard University Press, United States of America.
21. Van Hook, Jay M. (1996), << Knowledge, Belief, and Reformed Epistemology>> from Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Michael Peterson & others, Oxford University Press, New York.
22. Wainwright, William, (1988) Philosophy of Religion, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.
23. Wainwright, William, (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, Oxford University Press, Inc. New York.
24. Wittgenstein, Ludwig, (1969), On Certainty, Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, Translated by Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Vote
