Warranted Christian Belief

In WCB, Plantinga repeatedly refers to Alston's PERCEIVING GOD as "magisterial." Alston's book is indeed that. But Plantinga's own work in this volume is that and more. WCB is a philosophically sophisticated defense of even the simplest (and least sophisticated) faith. He challenges a very common objection to Christian belief: "I am not in a position to say whether Christian theism is true or false (who could know a thing like that?), but one thing I do know is that it is not warranted." Plantinga argues, successfully, I think, that this position itself is without warrant. Why? For the simple fact that *if* Christian theism is true, then believers probably *are* warranted even in simple faith. A serious challenge to warrant must therefore include a serious challenge to the truth of the belief. Warrant is whatever, when added to true belief, yields knowledge. And Plantinga carries into the WCB discussion the results of the prior two volumes. A belief is warranted when it is the product of a belief-producing mechanism that is (a)functioning properly (b) truth-aimed, and (c) functioning in the epistemic environment for which it was designed to acquire truth. This account seems to do the best job of making sense of those sorts of basic beliefs that all of us hold without having inferred them from other beliefs. I remember that it rained yesterday. What is my evidence that this memory is reliable? From what more basic and certainly known belief may I infer this? Nothing, really. Indeed, it is logically possible that I was brought into existence by a malevolent cartesian deceiver only five seconds ago, equipped with merely *apparent* memories of yesterday's rain, a particularly happy childhood, and even of having actually typed the beginning of this review (this, too, came into existence partially finished and entrusted to me to complete it). Of course, if I am the victim of such a ploy, then my memory belief is *not* the result of a properly functioning, belief-producing mechanism, and I am not warranted. But I take it that I am warranted in remembering yesterday's rain. In fact, I am not at all on thin ice in saying that I *know* that it rained yesterday. Assuming that (a) it really did rain and (b) my recalling it now is due to the fact that I saw it (or was told about it by my truthful wife, or some other reliable way of knowing) then my memory belief is indeed warranted and counts as knowledge. Suppose that God *does* exist just as believers maintain and that, further, God's presence is experienced in some immediate way. Calvin spoke of a *sensus divinitatus*--a sense of the divine--that was a part of the original cognitive equipment of all humans (and which was damaged when we were collectively dropped on our heads in the Fall). Suppose that faith amounts to a sort of restoration of this faculty. I take in the summer night sky in the South Dakota Badlands and this occasions spontaneous thoughts about God's creative activit

After a month of mulling over this book I'm still not sure if I've digested it enough to give it a sufficient review, but I'll give it a try. Alvin Plantinga is the most important and influential evangelical philosopher of the last half-century, and Warranted Christian Belief (hereafter WCB) will probably end up being seen as his most important work, especially when taken along with the two earlier works in his "Warrant" trilogy, "Warrant and Proper Function" and "Warrant: The Current Debate." But WCB is important not because it is some sort of magnum opus of proof that Christian belief is true (these would fall under what Plantinga calls the "de facto question") but because it provides a defense of Christian belief as being rational, justified, and warranted (the "de jure question"). Plantinga goes to great pains to define these terms. What does it mean, for example, when someone says a belief is irrational? Here he is at his best, as he is essentially defining the terms of the debate. Plantinga is an epistemologist, and thus his primary task as a philosopher has been the study of knowledge: what it is and how we get it. The Warrant trilogy has dealt with the idea of what actually constitutes a justified belief. In other words, it has dealt with the question of under what conditions an individual has an epistemic right to hold a certain belief or belief system. Thus you will find no defenses of the empty tomb here, nor any complex argument for God's existence. These are answers to the de facto question, but not the de jure question. The main tenets of WCB are two: (1) the sort of claims that Christianity makes are candidates for real knowledge on the basis of the fact that they are no more irrational, or unjustified, or unwarranted than many other types of beliefs we hold, such as the reality of other minds and (2) if Christianity is true, then there is a way in which such beliefs could be warranted for an individual, even in the face of a lack of hard proof. Indeed, one of Plantinga's main goals is to show that Christian belief is warranted without such proofs. He goes about this task with humor and wit, and I think he largely succeeds. He also tackles the difficult corollary questions of whether finite beings can even have real knowledge of an infinite, personal God and whether or not higher biblical criticism and the existence of evil constitute defeaters for classical Christian theism. Although this book is aimed at an intellectual audience and is written in many areas using the tools of the analytic philosopher, there is something else here of great value for Christian believers: a proposal for how Christian beliefs are actually developed. This was a great help to me. I was powerfully converted to Christ at age 19, but since then I have struggled much with whether or not Christian belief (and the Bible, in particular) are true. According to evidence, I may be able to form a strong belief based on probability that, for example, the Ea

There are two different types of criticism commonly given against Christian belief - one type is what Alvin Plantinga calls the De facto objection, which says that Christian belief is false because the evidence has proven it so - the other type (that is becoming more and more popular) is the De jure objection (the subject of this book) which claims that Christian belief is irrational, intellectually unacceptable, or morally suspect - irrespective of whether it is true or false. The beginning of the book discusses the difference between the De facto and De jure objections, and like the whole book it is very clear and illuminating -- The exact opposite of what you will read in this review -- Part 1 (Is there a question) begins by discussing (or searching for) some of Kants arguments concerning the impossibility of referring to anything beyond the world of experience -phenomena. Many others have taken up this 'argument' claiming that Kant proved that the language we use when speaking about the phenomenal world can not speak about the transcendent. Apparently, when the Christian speaks about God, ascribing properties to him -like infinite, ultimate- he is talking nonsense. Part 2 (what is the question) deals with what is meant by an objector when he says that Christian belief is irrational. After much consideration the most plausible answer is found in Marx & Fraud -the same basic type of objection can be found in Nietzsche and Durkheim too. In Part 3 Plantinga further develops his model for warranted Christian Belief (even if you have never read the other two books in the series - or God and other minds - you'll still be able to understand). This part of the book is the main response to the masters of suspicion (M & F), showing the futility of their objections. There is also a real good critique of naturalism found here (updated from warrant and proper function). The final part of the book deals with potential defeaters for Christian belief -- different kinds of scripture scholarship, postmodernism & pluralism, suffering & evil. This book is clear and intelligent (with humor mixed in) it's definitely worth reading.

Plantinga has devoted his scholarly life to answer the question whether the Christian faith can be justified, and this book is the fruit of forty years of excellent work. How can the Christian faith be justified? The usual answer is to give arguments for the truth of Christian convictions (from popular writers like Josh McDowell to first rate philosophers such as Richard Swinburne). Plantinga took a different route by asking: what is justification (or warrant for knowledge)? Why must Christians prove his convictions based on principles accepted by non-Christians? The first part of the book review and refute different theories about how Christian faith may be justified (e.g. evidentialism) or dismissed (e.g. Marx and Freud). The second part argues that experience of faith of an ordinary Christian is a perfect justification for the Christian faith, unless one can show that the Christian faith is likely to be false. The third part looks at reasons for arguing Christian faith is likely to be false (biblical criticism, pluralism, evil and suffering). Plantinga think that the truth of Christian faith cannot be demonstrated or proven, but he provides coherent and compelling reasons that faith is a sufficient justification for Christian belief. The arguments sometimes get very complicated, but Plantinga is exceptionally clear and precise and this work is more accesible to non-philosophers than his previous works.

This book is excellent. Plantinga systematically reviews current objections to the fundamental Christian faith providing a intense review of these possible defeaters. People such as Freud, Hick, Kaufmann (Gordon), and Kant are all discussed. This book provides an excellent defense of orthodox Christianity and the ability to still accept such beliefs in the 21st century. However, this book does not provide any offensive attacks which would strenghten Christianity, which left me somewhat disappointed. Nonetheless I am just being hyper-critical. This book is a must read for any serious Christian apologist or defender of the faith.