جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « پلانتینگا » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

This paper has two objectives first, to provide an explanation and analysis of Anselm and Plantinga's ontological argument based on the interpretation of William Rowe, a contemporary atheist, and second, to determine the place of the fallacy of " begging the question" in this argument. After presenting the criticisms of Anselm's interpretation of the argument, Rowe considers Plantinga's modal version to be the most convincing version of the argument and believes that previous interpretations, based on the principle that "existence in reality" is a superior property, are caught in a logical fallacy. Plantinga's interpretation is also based on the premise that God is "a possible being with maximum perfection," and this proposition is true only if God exists in the real world. In this research, using an analytical-critical method, I show that Anselm's interpretation and Plantinga's reconstruction of it are fallacious, and although Plantinga's modal interpretation has logical necessity, it does not prove the necessity of God's existence in the external world. This is because perfection in this argument is defined in a way that falls into the fallacy of "begging the question”.

Moral and natural accidents and misfortunes are part of the evil that we face in our surroundings. The problem of this research with the descriptive-analytical method and library-based collection, is a comparative study of the intellectual opinions of two Muslim and Christian thinkers (Ayatollah Javadi Amoli and Plantinga) and the connection between the subject of evil and Divine Science, Power and Wisdom from their views. Ayatollah Javadi has analyzed evil as nonexistent, and in addition, has used the theory of the best system, nizami ahsan, and relativizing the evil to solve the doubt. Plantinga, however, seeks help from a logical method known as the "defense based on authority". The answer on possible worlds is also discussed with this theory. The research findings show that the thinkers share the belief in the absolute perfect God. Of course, Ayatollah Javadi's point of view answers the question of moral and natural evil, but Plantinga's answer refers to mere moral evil and indirectly answers the question of natural evil.

Plantinga is one of the virtue-oriented philosophers and in epistemology, he has an approach of reliability and extroversion, in virtue-based reliability, the virtue and vice characteristics of the knowing agent, including the characteristics and aptitude of epistemological powers, are emphasized for Modi on the truth of belief. In general epistemology, Plantinga presented the theory of guarantee in the mechanism of the correct functioning of powers, and to guarantee the four conditions of the contract, which are: correctness of cognitive powers, correctness of work and suitable environment, purpose and plan, in religious epistemology, Plantinga considers humans to have a divine sense that Under the right circumstances, an actualized sense of theology produces honest religious beliefs. According to Mullah Sadra, the perceptive powers and the characteristics of the cognitive subject are effective in the formation of beliefs. With the condition of virtue of the perceptive powers regarding religious propositions, he distinguishes the powers that generate sincere religious beliefs from other powers. are, with the two processes of revelation and inspiration, the originator of honest religious belief, knowing the infallibility of honest beliefs resulting from the power of sanctity and recognizing the powers of perception of religious propositions as inherent, the wideness of honest religious beliefs and the influence of non-cognitive factors affecting knowledge and the role of moral virtues in Knowledge is one of the reasons for the similarity of Mulla Sadra's view to Plantinga.

Patrick Grim has presented an argument against the compatibility of Divine Omniscience. Citing Cantor's Theorem and using the accepted definition of omniscience -knowledge of all true propositions- Grim denies the existence of an Omniscient due to the impossibility of a set that includes all true propositions. Grim's argument raised many answers by Christian philosophers. For example, Plantinga has objected to this argument by showing its self-contradictoriness. Although there are fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian theology in explaining the nature of omniscience, considering the capacity of Sadra's transcendent wisdom, by citing issues such as the definition and nature of collection as well as the conditions of impossible sequence, addition to refuting Grim's argument that there are more facts than the set of all facts, the possibility of the knowledge of Omniscient to an infinite series of sets of facts can be proved.

Wittgenstein with a linguistic view of religious beliefs, and Kierkegaard, who opposes religious propositions, are considered believers, Plantinga has an extroverted and trusting approach. In the mechanism of reaching his general epistemology, he first talks about the functioning of correct epistemological powers and guaranteed knowledge, he enters religious epistemology with these foundations. Plantinga has a virtue-oriented approach in religious epistemology. The virtue of beliefs resulting from divine sense is due to the basis and certainty of this power, reasoning based on its true basis leads us to faith. From the basis of the beliefs resulting from the divine sense, he concludes the natural knowledge of God, this knowledge is natural, reliable and guaranteed. Plantinga has removed any rational reflection from the process of producing and guaranteeing beliefs resulting from divine sense. Plantinga has also acted as a believer in his religious experience. Religious beliefs resulting from religious experience are basic and infallible beliefs, so belief in God is also accepted as a basis. Plantinga, although he does not admit to being a believer and does not accept such a claim, but his being a believer is an essential part of accepting It is his. And without believing in faith, it can be said that his religious epistemological apparatus and structure are not properly planned.

According to methodological naturalism, in scientific explanation we can only appeal to natural laws, forces and entities, without assuming any role for supernatural entities and parameters. Philosophical naturalism is an ontological view according to which there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and physical entities. To justify their views, naturalists usually use Darwin's theory of evolution and extend its domain over all phenomena. In this paper, we will explain Daniel Dennett's views on these issues and critically evaluate his arguments. Then, Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism will be discussed. The conclusion of the paper is that ontological naturalism is not a correct and tenable opinion.

This paper has been written with the aim of answering the following two questions: "Is it possible to know the God’s Essence in view of Alvin Plantinga? What are its strengths and weaknesses in this regard?" The findings of this paper are: In the Plantinga’s vocabulary network, essence and nature are used in the same sense; in view of Plantinga, God has absolute sovereignty over the universe. Plantinga has the following effects on this sovereignty: The simplicity of the Essence, the objectivity of the Essence and the Essence’s necessaries (which, of course, is accompanied by doubts from Plantinga's point of view) and the infinity of the Essence; After this, Plantinga proves the necessity of Essence or Nature for God and considers God’s Essence as the same as God’s Being. The lack of clarity in expressing the relationship between Essence and the necessity of Essence, as well as the lack of clarity in positions on his statements, is criticized. Finally, Plantinga rejects the belief that it is impossible to know Essence and accepts that man has the possibility of knowing God’s Essence; of course, there are other criticisms of his arguments, such as reducing theology to conceptual issues and presupposing the authenticity of the scriptures. This article collect data and analyze and critique them with descriptive-analytical method and uses library tools too.

As the creator and generator of episteme, God in the root of Plantinga’s epistemology theory plays such a substantial role that overshadows the knower’s position. This approach will eventually mergesintonaturalistic episteme theories. According to Plantinga, awareness and duty should be removed from cognition process to solve Gotieh’s problem. The question is, however, whether byremoving them and the knower’s will, the theory solvesthe cognitive challenges as an extrovert reliabilism and virtue system or it just gives raise to another question. The present paper is an attempt to survey God’s position in proper function theory and answer the noted question. The study was conducted through library and theoretical review. The role of awareness in the elements of “proper function,” “proper situation,” and “desire”were elaborated through comparing awareness in Plantinga, Goldman, and Soza’s theories. The results showed that leaving God with the whole responsibility of the process of episteme development and removing the knower’s awareness from the structure of proper function of episteme forces, degrades human episteme to animal episteme. The outcome of adding the element of “desire” in the development of episteme is the conversion of episteme into something random and temperament in nature. Thereby and as to the element of “proper situation,” Plantinga needs to add the knower to the process episteme development.

In recent years, many theologians have tried to solve the problem of conflict between science and religion. Alvin Plantinga is a well-known American Calvinist philosopher who proposed the conflict between science and naturalism as a solution to this problem. He mainly tries to evaluate the seemingly conflict examples, and meanwhile he partly criticize the foundations of the contemporary cosmology, epistemology and scientific methodology in order to solve the challenge. The conflict assumption, according to Plantinga, comes from the wrong interpretations of science, its naturalistic methodology and the exaggerated pictures of the historical conflict examples. Indeed, he claims that there is no real conflict between religion and science, and the seemingly conflict between them is superficial, i.e., there is no factual inconsistency between religion and science, but the real conflict is between science and naturalism.

In this article the rationality of faith in Plantinga's three major works is studied – the three works in which the author, while responding to the critiques, presents his viewpoints. In this contribution, Plantinga's line of argumentation in these books is sought and then, having explained his views, they are being analyzed. Hence, first his analogical argument is criticized and then it will be discussed that there is incoherence in his critiques of the evidentialism and foundationalism. It will be mentioned also, in the end, that his idea that the belief in God needs no evidence is a kind of fideism.

Comparison of Mula Sadra’s epistemology theory and virtual epistemology theories of Zagzebski and Platinga infers that the former’s theory can be categorized as a virtual epistemology. Platinga believes in virtue of forming faculties and Zagzebski believes in function of intellectual power in forming episteme. In fact, both of them believe is some aspects of the elements effective in formation and development of belief so that none of the theories are free of objection. Mula Sadra, on the other hand, believes in virtue of belief forming faculties, effect of moral faculties function on intellectual faculties, and their interactive function in forming belief and truth conductivity process. Plantinga argues that only belief forming faculties may form beliefs, while Zagzebski and Mula Sadra argue that moral faculties prepare the ground form formation of true beliefs and that belief formation is an attribute of belief forming faculties. In addition to belief forming and ground preparing faculties, Mula Sadra proposes reliability and truth conductivity processes of revelation and inspiration as two other processes that form reliable and true beliefs.

Various views about the rationality/irrationality of believing in God have been suggested by western religious and secular thinners. The theory of "Basicalism" together with its similar views such as "Evidentialism", "Fideism" and"Pragmatism" is one of the epistemological views posed about the belief in God and seeks to prove its rationality. In general, based on this view, believing in God does not require any rational reasoning. Various versions of this view have been presented so far.One of its versions expressed by scholars like Swinburne, Alston and Plantinga is what is known as Experientialism. In his special exposition of Experientialism – which he refers to as "reformed epistemology" –Plantinga has had two different dictions in his works. In his early woks such as God and other Minds, "Is Belief in God Rational?", "Is Belief in God Properly Basic?" and"Reformed Epistemology and Christian Apologetics", he endeavored to prove the rationality and justificationof believing in God and tried to offer certain and compelling arguments to prove the existence of God. In these works, Plantinga has adopted an internal approach toward the rationality of believing in God and regards it as a basic belief. Criticizing classic foundationalism, he sought to expand a different version of foundationalism according to which God's existence is regarded as basic for a believer. Based on this approach, Palntinga, like other proponents of foundationalism, considers the knowledgea "True Justified Belief". His view is, however, different from other foundationalists in defining the nature of the third element of knowledge. According to Plantinga's early exposition of his theory, the criteria of rationality of believing in God include the principles of classic foundationalism(such as evident to senses, evident to reason and incorrigibility) and other elements. He rejected the deductive-priori method concerning the criteria of determining basic belief and suggested an inductive- posteriori one. Based on this view, the cause behind thebasic nature of belief is an internal aspect and consequently is completely personal and relative. That means any kind of assessment of one's beliefs should be made by referring to his/her cognitional structure. Consequently, no general criterion can be determined for making a belief basic because every individual can offer a specific criterion based on his own cognitional structure which differs from others. Thus, based on this version, the only difference between Plantinga and other foundationalists is in his different view about the basic belief of the individuals. He believes that to determine the basic beliefs, first the person should make distinction between what he considers basic from non-basic ones and then he should introduce a criterion by which his belief becomes basic. Therefore, by looking at the issue from a different angle, he offered a new and more expanded version of the basic beliefs according to which the belief in God becomes quite rational. Plantinga, on the other hand, in his later works (three Warrants)emphasizes that instead of having an internal approach toward the rationality and justification; one should have an external approach and consider the believer's beliefs as warranted. This shift in Plantinga's approach stemmed from his theory about epistemological justification of which was reflected in his two impressive works entitled:Warrant: the Current Debateand Warrant and Proper Function(published in 1993). Based on the external approach, he shifts from the notion of justification to Warrant. He considers the rationality of religious belief not in being justifiable, but warranted which can be a guarantee for the rationality of believing in God. On the other hand, he changed the third element of knowledge from "justifiable" to "warranted" and defined the knowledge as "a True Warranted Belief"In this new approach, he doesnt seek to define the justification and the internal criteria of being justifiable, rather he emphasizes the Goldman's reliabilism and speaks out about the man's propercognitional system. Based on this view, if man's cognitional system works properly, he will possess epistemological rationality. In external approach, Plantinga believes that the theistic sensation is a mechanism producing faith which, if having proper condition,can cause a belief which doesnt evidently depend on other beliefs. Thus, if the person's perceiving powers work properly and they aim to catch the truth and there is no barrier, the person's belief in God can be counted as basic.

During long centuries, many philosophers have accepted strong foundationalism and have used it in their reasoning. But some contemporary philosophers like Alvin Plantnga have suggested a new theory called reformed epistemology. According to this theory, the basic propositions are not limited to number of propositions which are accepted by strong foundationalism, but rather there are many other basic propositions including the belief in God. So the result is that according to this theory, there is no need to reasoning for the existence of God and this belief is the basic belief. Alvin Plantinga refuted the strong foundationalim by three reasons. In this paper these reasons have been analyzed and criticized. And then five reasons to refute the theory of reformed epistemology have been explained. Plantinga himself have faced some of these reasons and have tried to reply them, but in this paper his reasons have been refuted and finally the theory of reformed epistemology has been rejected.

Molla Sadra and Plantinga, the former from Islamic philosophy tradition and the latter from the western tradition, each has studied the important problem of evils on his own principles and views. Relying on principality and goodness of existence, God`s attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and wisdom and the world order`s state of being the best, evil`s state of being non-existential, explaining cognitive evil, non-truthfulness of evils, superiority of goodness over evil and rejecting humanistic tendency in the field, Sadra has solved the problem. However, centering on reformed epistemology, some Christian theological and humanistic principles, describing the possible world and the relationship between human will and Divine Omnipotence, Plantinga has proved that reasonable problem of evil never contradicts the existence of God. Moreover, Plantinga has agreed that Divine omnipotence does not include J. L. Mackie; the two scholars think the same with belief in God, His being omnipotent, omniscient and goodness, though they differs in such fields as facing the problem, essential commenting and designation of the answer in the fields of ethics, nature and in defending Divine Justice, bestness of the world of existence and superiority of logical view.

Planting has attended the problem of God in two modes: provability and justifiability. The former has been attended by this paper. He has taken two considerable steps in this aspect. Planting has studied cosmological, teleological and ontological proofs critically at first and then, proposing a new form of ontological proof on thebasis of modal logic, he tried to cinclude that though this proof does not necessitates belief in a necessary being, it leads to the reasonability of the belief. This paper has examined Plantinga‘s view on ontological proof and criticized some of his considerations.

Ontological arguments are those arguments which prove God's existence by a preori method through analyzing the concept of God. The first one who represented this kind of arguments was Anselm, the medieval theologian and philosopher. Anselm's argument has always been marked from its proposal (11th century) until now, because of its complexity and ambiguity. There are various versions of this argument, contemporary one of the most important versions of which belongs to Alvin Platinga, the contemporary philosopher and epistemologist.Since axiomatic method is a suitable way to evaluate and criticize an argument through explaining its logical format and specifying its premises, this article is going to introduce it and show the sufficiency of Plantinga's version in proving God's existence through using this method and presenting its exact logical format (by employing both ancient and symbolic logic).