Description
I need help answering these questions for my philosophy class. Answers do not need to need to be long.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Last Name 1
First Name Last Name
Professor’s Name
Course Title
April 24, 2018
Evidence and Religious Belief.
Be able to explain how a belief is justified according to Classical Foundationalism?
For a classical foundation belief to be justified, it needs to be acquired in an infallible
fashion. This means the beliefs are only justified if one cannot be mistaken about the proposition
in question.
What are Plantinga’s reasons for arguing that Classical Foundationalism should be
rejected?
Plantinga argues that classical foundationalism is self-referentially incoherent. According
to Plantinga, a belief was only justifiable if and only it is basic, that is, incorrigible and selfevident or believed on an evidential basis of proportions which are acceptable. He argued that
Classical Foundationalism was not properly basic by the above-mentioned criterion as it is not
self-evident nor appropriate about a person’s immediate experience.
How does Plantinga think that theistic belief (that God exists) is justified?
Plantinga argued that there were no reasons or arguments for the existence of God needed
to justify belief in His existence. Rather the fact that people have Sensus divinitatis offers
sufficient justification need to consider God as a basic belief. In short, the circumstances that
Last Name 2
trigger the tendency to believe in the existence of God provide justifying circumstances for
belief.
d’Aquili and Newberg give an argument from cognitive science showing that humans have
a built-in "causal operator" that inputs cause in whatever strip of reality under
observation. The upshot is that theistic belief will never go away because humans will
always posit God as a cause if the strip of reality under observation is large enough.
Does this argument support naturalism, or does it support the reformed epistemologists
like Alston and Plantinga? Be able to offer an argument for your conclusion.
d’Acquili and Newberg’s argument about neuroscientific analysis is epistemologically
satisfying. According to the theory, the important characteristics of different states of reality are
reducible only to the strength of sense of reality. The vivid sense of reality in this theory is the
only thing that can be used to know what is really real.
What is the “veil of perception?”
Veil of perception of is the ability to justify some of our beliefs about the external world
that is created by the visual image of it. For example, this can happen if one makes an image pop
in and out of the existence by opening and closing his/her eyes and...