Classical and Reformed Epistemology Apologetics By: Stephen Cowan

 

The Classical and Reformed Epistemology by Stephen Cowan have two final “supposes.” Suppose that you come to believe that there is a God because your parents taught you from the cradle up that God exists. Or suppose that you are on a retreat or on the top of a mountain and have a sense of being loved by God or that God created the universe. You begin to believe in God, not because you are persuaded by the argument from design—you are simply taken with belief in God. You just find yourself believing, what you had heretofore denied, that God exists.

My suppose-this and suppose-that stories are intended to raise the problem of the relationship of our important beliefs to evidence (and counterevidence). Since the Enlightenment, there has been a demand to expose all of our beliefs to the searching criticism of reason. If a belief is unsupported by the evidence, it is irrational to believe it. It is the position of Reformed epistemology (likely the position that Calvin held) that belief in God, like belief in other persons, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational.

The claim that belief in God is rational without the support of evidence or argument is startling for many an atheist or theist. Most atheist intellectuals feel comfort in their disbelief in God because they judge that there is little or no evidence for God’s existence.

 THE DEMAND FOR EVIDENCE

The first problem with Clifford’s universal demand for evidence is that it cannot meet its own demand. Clifford offers two fetching examples (a ship owner knowingly sends an unseaworthy ship to sea, and in the first example, it sinks, and in the second example, it makes the trip) in support of his claim.

Consider what someone like Clifford might allow us to take for evidence—beliefs that we acquire through sensory experience and beliefs that are self-evident like logic and mathematics. On the next rainy day, make a list of all of your experiential beliefs: the sky is blue, grass is green, most trees are taller than most grasshoppers, slugs leave a slimy trail.

We, finite beings that we are, simply cannot meet such a demand. Consider all of the beliefs that you currently hold. The demand for evidence simply cannot be met in a large number of cases with the cognitive equipment we possess. No one, as mentioned above, has ever been able to prove the existence of other persons. No one has ever been able to prove that we were not created five minutes ago with our memories intact. No one has been able to prove the reality of the past or that, in the future, the sun will rise. This list could go on and on. There is a limit to the things that human beings can prove. A great deal of what we believe is based on faith, not on evidence or arguments.

 WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT

 There are at least three reasons to believe that it is proper or rational for a person to accept belief in God without the need for an argument. First, there are very few people who have access to or the ability to assess most theistic arguments. It is hard to imagine, therefore, that the demand for evidence would be a requirement of reason.

Second, it seems that God has given us an awareness of himself that is not dependent on theistic arguments. It is hard to imagine that God would make rational belief as difficult as those who demand evidence contend.

Third, belief in God is more like belief in a person than belief in a scientific theory. Consider the examples that started this essay. Somehow the scientific approach—doubt first, consider all of the available evidence, and believe later—seems woefully inadequate or inappropriate to personal relations. What seems manifestly reasonable for physicists in their laboratory is desperately deficient in human relations. Human relations demand trust, commitment, and faith. If belief in God is more like belief in other persons than belief in atoms, then the trust that is appropriate to persons will be appropriate to God.

 WITH OR WITHOUT EVIDENCE

 I also believe, like Calvin, that the natural knowledge of himself that God has implanted within us has been overlaid by sin. Part of the redemptive process will require the removal of the effects of sin on our minds. Attention to theistic arguments might do that. Also, some of the barriers to religious belief—such as the problem of evil or the alleged threat of science to religion—may need to be removed before one can see the light that has been shining within all along.

My approach to belief in God has been rather descriptive. I believe that we need to pay a lot more attention to how actual people actually acquire beliefs. The psychology of believing may tell us a lot about our cognitive equipment. The lessons learned from observing people and their beliefs support the position that I have defended: rational people may rationally believe in God without evidence or argument.

 

REFORMED EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE BIBLE

 What is the biblical or theological basis for Reformed epistemology? I believe that Scripture woefully underdetermines most any philosophical position. By “underdetermines” I mean that there is not sufficient inescapable evidence to lead us invariably to one conclusion over another; the data do not determine a particular conclusion.

On the other hand, Scripture itself simply starts with God: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Never, within Scripture itself, is there an attempt to prove the existence of God; if proving God’s existence were demanded of all believers, one might expect to find at least one of the believers in the Bible discussing theistic arguments.

 There are so many other hands, I cringe when people claim that their apologetic approach is the biblical approach. Anyone can find some support for his or her position in Scripture. The reason that Scripture underdetermines any contemporary apologetic approach seems clear. The Bible was written during a time when virtually everyone assumed the existence of some god or another. The Bible does try to make a case that Yahweh is God, and the New Testament tries to make a case that he has revealed himself uniquely in the Christ (in both instances, the biblical writers refer to the kinds of beliefs that people in their culture might find appealing). But everywhere the existence of a god is assumed.  

 

POSTMODERNISM

The early modern world was in intellectual turmoil awaiting a rational decision procedure by a Descartes, a Locke, or a Kant. In science, politics, and religion, revolutions were rife and the time ripe for a method of rational discernment.

 Although it is impossible to set a precise modus operandi for modern philosophy, there are some shared concerns among its key players. Foremost among these concerns was the quest for both certainty and rational consensus.

 Locke was likewise devoted to certainty: “I should only show…how men, barely by the use of their natural faculties, may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions, and may arrive at certainty, without any such original notions or principles.” And Kant writes: “As regards the form of our enquiry, certainty and clearness are two essential requirements, rightly to be extracted from anyone who ventures upon so delicate an undertaking

 A second pervasive assumption of the Cartesian project is internalism. The central contention of internalism is that the justifying conditions of a belief are somehow internal to the believing agent; whatever it is that justifies belief, and here the accounts vary widely, is something to which the believer has internal access.

 What makes internalism attractive is that it places the justification of our beliefs within our own intellectual purview. I simply need to check my foundational beliefs, the inferences that I’ve made, and the resultant beliefs to see if my beliefs are justified. Beliefs wear their justification on their sleeves, so to speak, according to internalism. So, according to internalism, the entire responsibility for one’s believings belongs to oneself.

 

Plantinga argues that modern foundationalism has misunderstood the nature of justification. (7) Modern foundationalism is based on an unattainable quest for certainty and is unduly internalist. Plantinga calls the special property that turns true belief into knowledge “warrant.” A belief B has warrant for one if and only if B is produced by one’s properly functioning cognitive faculties in circumstances to which those faculties are designed to apply; in addition those faculties must be designed for the purpose of producing true beliefs.

Note briefly the portions of Plantinga’s definition that are not within one’s immediate or direct purview—whether or not one’s faculties are functioning properly, whether or not one’s faculties are designed by God, whether or not one’s faculties are designed for the production of true beliefs, whether or not one is using one’s faculties in the environment intended for their use (one might be seeing a mirage and taking it for real)

 POSTMODERN APOLOGETICS

How might a Reformed epistemologist defend her faith in our postmodern world? Here I shall primarily speak of belief in God, belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good creator of the universe. I do not have a well worked out strategy for defending Christian belief, although I suspect that the strategy I suggest can be extended to Christian belief. (8)

 According to the theory of warrant developed above, a person has a warranted belief in God if her belief in God is produced by her properly functioning cognitive faculties in circumstances to which those faculties are designed to apply. According to the theory of warrant developed above, a person has a warranted belief in God if her belief in God is produced by her properly functioning cognitive faculties in circumstances to which those faculties are designed to apply.

One good apologetic strategy, therefore, is to encourage unbelievers to put themselves in situations where people are typically taken with belief in God: on a mountain, for example, or at the sea, where we see God’s majesty and creative power. (9)

 A variety of circumstances are appropriate to evoking or awaking belief in God, for example, the birth of one’s child, watching the sunset on the mountains or the ocean, examining the beauty of a flower, noting that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made,” or walking through the woods in a time of quiet reflection. These situations often occasion belief in God because in these circumstances we come into contact with the Creator and belief in God is quickened, enlivened, or made apparent.

 We move from circumstances that are full of wonder to circumstances that are full of terror. Death often awakens a dormant sense of the divine. As we face our own end (which most of us repress, pretending with all our might that we are immortal), we recognize that we are finite, impotent, mere creature.

 The apparent threat of science to religion seems to have recently intensified. Richard Dawkins, whose new appointment at Oxford seems to have carried with it the charge to critique religious faith, has stated that Charles Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (12)

There are at least three options for the thinking Christian apologist. One option is to resist evolutionary theory, (14) another is to remain agnostic about the truth of evolutionary theory, (15) and yet another is to embrace it. (16)

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                     MY PERSONAL RESPONSE

The Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that concern itself with the search for theory of knowledge comes from the Greek knowledge and theory. And it analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth belief and justification. In this short story about the husband and wife that his wife is declares that she is cheating on Him. Base on the story it’s really hurt to believe without any evidence the nature of the human since before they believe if they see. Nowadays they are motto say to see is to believe it shows how the evidence is needed before they agree to that. From reformed epistemology, Calvin and Alvin Plantinga are stand that belief in God, like belief in other persons, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. The demand for evidence is essential to substantiate all question like what W.K Clifford for example the blueprint how to make a plan and as evidence of they are doing their job properly, same the math that need the accurate answer, in science that it should be right formula and appropriate answer to show that experiment activity was done safety and can be used it. As a human being we cannot fathom the things of God.  We do not understand all the ways that he is working. This is why we have faith. Does this mean that arguments for nothing evidence of God are useless because they want to see God’s face? Not all. Sure I cannot give the very perfect evidence which will convince all thinking people but this does not mean I don’t have good reason to believe in God. Because there are many reason to prove that God is real and he is with us He is omnipotent, omnipresence and omniscient. It may turn out that some of reasons for believing in God may be persuasive. Even if they aren’t persuaded to believe that God exist, the arguments may not be useless. It is reasonable to believe that the mountains are real and our memories are generally reliable and that other minds exist. It is reasonable to believe these things even though they cannot be proven. Maybe some arguments for God’s existence will persuade to belief in God is reasonable.  Nowadays there are false prophets false belief spreading around and providing confusion to not believe in God but as Christian we should believe that the evidence is no other is Jesus Christ who died for us and God sent his begotten Son to save us and his Holy spirit to lead us and give the conviction in everything and the most important He offered the everlasting life to everyone if we believe in Him. God shows his mercy and grace even we are still commit sins He is gracious and just to forgive us. With or without the evidence God is exist I’m still believe that God is alive in the beginning at the end of all age. In the bible says in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The bible says believe and you will see And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Like the bible says in Isaias 55: 8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways are not my ways, declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. But even then we will merely be tapping in to the surface of the fullness of who He is “the beginning of wisdom, which means we will always have more to learn. Let’s not expect or demand to understand all. There will be thing we won’t understand. We just need to keep revering and trusting Him because God’s wisdom in unfathomable.