[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles

Title: Epistemic Certainty and Belief in God
Source: Triablogue
URL Source: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009 ... rtainty-and-belief-in-god.html
Published: May 27, 2009
Author: Dr. Michael Sudduth
Post Date: 2015-01-21 16:16:23 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 23292
Comments: 66

Many theists maintain that they are certain of the truth of various theological propositions, among them being the proposition that God exists. I want to argue that for at least one important sense of certainty this position is false.

The relevant sense of certainty here is what is called epistemic certainty, a species of certainty distinguished from so-called psychological certainty. The latter is merely descriptive and refers to a cognizer having maximal conviction or assurance of the truth of some proposition.

While many theists are psychologically certain of God’s existence, this is epistemologically uninteresting. People have psychological certainty regarding all sorts of false propositions (e.g., Santa Claus exists, the world is flat, Elvis is alive). By contrast, a belief that is epistemically certain has some epistemic merit or credential, an epistemic merit or credential that is in some respect unsurpassed by other beliefs. I’ll argue that theistic belief (and belief in other theological propositions) is not epistemically certain...............

******************************************************************************** One might suppose, though, that a different answer can be drawn from Plantinga’s epistemology. On Plantinga’s view, a person whose relevant cognitive faculties are functioning properly will hold a firm theistic belief that has a high degree of warrant. In fact, on Plantinga’s view, theistic belief is indefeasible for all fully rational persons. No proposition a fully rational person entertains could serve as a defeater for theistic belief. That’s a pretty substantial epistemic credential.

Of course, defeaters against theistic belief exist according to Plantinga, but only because the epistemic integrity of some other aspect of our cognitive establishment (perhaps the sensus divinitatis) has been compromised, say by the noetic effects of sin. It may very well be true that apart from the noetic effects of sin, humans would believe in God just as firmly as they believe in their own existence, the existence of an external world, other minds, and various a priori truths, and perhaps our theistic beliefs would be just as warranted as these other beliefs.

But this is an ideal view of the human cognitive situation, at best true for some original cognitive design plan and perhaps true for us in our final state. But now we see through a glass darkly, as it were. As indicated in prior chapters, the noetic effects of sin are a factor in assessing the degree to which all our beliefs can be warranted, including belief in God. It is hard to see how theistic belief can be maximally warranted for humans under any post-lapsarian cognitive design plan.11

So I think we must conclude that there isn’t a very strong case for supposing that theistic beliefs are epistemically certain in either the sense of indubitability or maximal warrant. In fact, this looks just plain false.

III. The Senses in which Belief in God is Certain

In what sense, then, can theistic belief be certain?

Many theists are psychologically certain of the existence of God and other theological propositions. However practically useful such a belief is, psychological certainty says nothing about the normative axis of belief, the epistemic merits or credentials of a belief. So we must look elsewhere for a relevant and plausible sense in which theists may have certainty concerning the existence of God and other theological propositions.

If God’s existence is logically necessary, then theistic belief is certain in a purely logical sense, for then it will not be logically possible to believe that God exists and for this belief to be false.12 But this isn’t epistemic certainty. Since it is logically possible to believe a logically necessary truth and yet not know the proposition, or even be warranted in holding it, clearly there is a sense in which it is impossible to be mistaken in a belief and yet for this to carry no epistemic significance. Suppose Jack believes nothing is red and non-colored because a character in a cartoon asserts it and Jack is inclined to accept whatever he hears cartoon characters affirm. His belief is true, but it would seem to have little by way of warrant. The logical status of the proposition tells us nothing about the positive epistemic status of his belief in the proposition.13

I would suggest that the relevant and plausible kind of certainty is moral certainty. A morally certain belief is beyond all reasonable doubt, though not beyond all possible doubt. In positive terms, such beliefs are highly probable. Morally certain beliefs entitle us to be sure about our beliefs, and at least some of them they carry a degree of warrant that is plausibly sufficient, together with the satisfaction of the truth condition, for knowledge. Thus morally certain theistic beliefs do justice to the Biblical passages that suggest Christians ought to be sure about their faith and that Christians have knowledge of God.14

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment:

A good mental drill in this piece. I posted two of the main points, and the author's summary. Good debate in the comments section at the site.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52.

#19. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Pericles (#0)

What is the main error of this approach?

The "proof" of "existence" of God required here is impossible. Why? Because it starts with certain epistemological and metaphysical assumption - that was is certain is what is immanent - ie directly accessible data and what is reliable is a logical reasoning based on data. And that certainty is the most important and attainable goal.

Problem is that such approach cannot "prove" anything, not even an existence of other human beings. Logically we end up with a skeptical solipsism. If we are a part of a larger whole, we should not assume that we can reconstruct this whole from the part that we are. Same way as a spider weaving his web from his one glands cannot reconstruct the surrounding world.

The right approach is the sane acceptance of the whole, that cannot be "proven" but that makes sense - the sensible gestalt. It is sane to believe that other beings exist, that the universe is sensible and to start from the whole in order to explain our role as a meaningful part.

In other words, not only the Kantian "practical reason" trumps Kantian "pure reason" but also the very Kantian/Cartesian/Husserlian approach undercuts itself and leads to the absurdity.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-22   5:59:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: A Pole (#19)

In other words, not only the Kantian "practical reason" trumps Kantian "pure reason" but also the very Kantian/Cartesian/Husserlian approach undercuts itself and leads to the absurdity.

Yes, the author points this out. Why the summary at the end is important to the overall approach.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-22   9:03:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: redleghunter (#20) (Edited)

I would add to it that God is the source of all existence and as such He is above existence.

He is the source of reason and logic so He is above them. The rational and logical proofs cannot reach Him.

We can know Him through our hearts as a Person in Whose image we are made.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-22   9:41:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A Pole (#22)

I would add to it that God is the source of all existence and as such He is above existence.

He is the source of reason and logic so He is above them. The rational and logical proofs cannot reach Him.

We can know Him through our hearts as a Person in Whose image we are made.

I agree. I think that is why the author put this portion in with regards to the creator and not the Creator:

One might suppose, though, that a different answer can be drawn from Plantinga’s epistemology. On Plantinga’s view, a person whose relevant cognitive faculties are functioning properly will hold a firm theistic belief that has a high degree of warrant. In fact, on Plantinga’s view, theistic belief is indefeasible for all fully rational persons. No proposition a fully rational person entertains could serve as a defeater for theistic belief. That’s a pretty substantial epistemic credential.

Of course, defeaters against theistic belief exist according to Plantinga, but only because the epistemic integrity of some other aspect of our cognitive establishment (perhaps the sensus divinitatis) has been compromised, say by the noetic effects of sin. It may very well be true that apart from the noetic effects of sin, humans would believe in God just as firmly as they believe in their own existence, the existence of an external world, other minds, and various a priori truths, and perhaps our theistic beliefs would be just as warranted as these other beliefs.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-22   14:12:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: redleghunter (#27)

It may very well be true that apart from the noetic effects of sin, humans would believe in God just as firmly as they believe in their own existence, the existence of an external world, other minds, and various a priori truths, and perhaps our theistic beliefs would be just as warranted as these other beliefs.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-22   14:47:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: A Pole (#28)

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God

Sometimes the impure in heart - or at any rate those who think themselves impure in heart - see God too.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-24   8:29:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Vicomte13 (#50)

Sometimes the impure in heart - or at any rate those who think themselves impure in heart - see God too.

If they are truly contrite. Contrition purifies heart.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

If your deeds are evil but you love the truth, you come to the light even if this is painful. This is contrition.

A Pole  posted on  2015-01-24   9:57:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 52.

        There are no replies to Comment # 52.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 52.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com