Reformed epistemology is a school of thought in philosophy that seeks to defend the rationality of Christian belief against objections. The central thesis of reformed epistemology is that belief in God can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence, based on the innate human sense of the divine. As an apologetic approach, reformed epistemology argues that Christians are within their epistemic rights to hold their beliefs in God without propositional evidence.
Some key figures in the development of reformed epistemology include Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and William Alston. They contend that just as perceptual beliefs about the external world or memory beliefs about the past can be rational without propositional evidence, so too can belief in God be rational and warranted in the absence of arguments or evidence. This is because belief in God is properly basic – it does not depend on inference from other beliefs and can be rational without evidence if it arises from an innate God-given faculty for perceiving the divine.
Plantinga in particular argues against the evidentialist objection that belief in God is irrational or unjustified without evidence. Drawing on Calvinist ideas, he suggests that belief in God is properly basic because it stems from a sensus divinitatis – a natural inborn tendency as part of the imago dei (image of God) to form beliefs about God in response to situations such as witnessing beauty, moral obligation, and sense of contingency. Such theistic beliefs do not require evidence to be rational, just as perceptual or memory beliefs do not require evidence. Belief in God is thus justified and knowledge unless given positive reasons for disbelief.
Reformed epistemology contends that demanding evidence for basic Christian beliefs mistakenly treats them as inferred conclusions rather than properly basic beliefs grounded in human cognitive design. Belief in God arises from an immediate, natural tendency to perceive divinity, not as an inferred explanation. Requiring propositional evidence wrongly assumes Christian beliefs derive from reasoning rather than a basic tendency to form God beliefs.
A key distinction in reformed epistemology is between what is justified or unjustified and what constitutes knowledge or mere belief. Plantinga argues belief in God can be justified and rational even without evidence, but he acknowledges lack of evidence prevents it from being knowledge in a strict sense. Other reformed thinkers contend experiential encounter with God does confer knowledge in a direct, immediate way even without propositional proofs. But all agree Christian belief can be warranted and rational without evidence-based arguments.
In terms of an apologetic method, reformed epistemology shifts focus away from providing positive arguments and evidence for God’s existence. Instead, it concentrates on rebutting objections to Christian belief and showing such belief can be rational, reasonable, and justified even without proofs. Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, for example, contends that naturalism cannot account for rational faculties evolved by unguided evolution, thereby undermining naturalism’s objections to supernatural beliefs.
Reformed epistemology has attracted criticism on various fronts. Some argue it sets the bar too low for rational belief by not requiring evidence. Others contend experiences presumed to reflect a sensus divinitatis arise from psychological factors like wish fulfillment. Evidentialists object it is unreasonable to hold firm beliefs without evidential support. And some argue it essentially provides cover for irrational fideistic leaps of faith.
Proponents, however, view reformed epistemology as successfully rebutting overstated objections to Christian belief and showing that faith commitments are not contrary to reason when understood as properly basic beliefs grounded in innate faculties. They see it as placing belief in God on a rational footing comparable to beliefs about sense perception, memory, or morality which are widely accepted as reasonable without propositional proofs.
In summary, reformed epistemology is an apologetic program within the Reformed Christian tradition that argues belief in God is rational and justified even without evidence or arguments. It contends faith arises from an innate God-given sensus divinitatis rather than inferences or reasoning. And it seeks to defend Christian belief from accusations of irrationality by treating faith commitments as properly basic beliefs grounded in human cognitive faculties designed by God to include awareness of the divine. The rationality of Christian belief, it is argued, does not depend on inferential proofs or propositional evidences but rather on an immediate experiential sense of the reality of God.
Key Points of Reformed Epistemology Apologetics
– Argues Christian belief can be rational and justified without evidence or arguments by treating faith as properly basic
– Contends belief in God stems from a God-given sensus divinitatis, an innate tendency to perceive the divine
– Defends faith from charges of irrationality; belief in God does not require evidence to be reasonable
– Shifts apologetic focus from giving positive proofs for God to rebutting claims that belief without evidence is irrational
– Aims to show belief in God is grounded by human cognitive functions, just as perceptual or memory beliefs are accepted as rational without proofs
– Argues requiring evidence for God mistakenly assumes faith derives from inferences rather than a basic tendency
– Draws from Reformed/Calvinist ideas about innate knowledge of God through creation as imago dei
– Contrasts warrant (reasonable grounds for belief) with strict propositional knowledge requiring proofs
– Critics argue it sets the bar too low for rational belief and provides cover for fideistic irrationalism
– Proponents see it as showing key faith commitments are not contrary to reason but grounded in human cognitive architecture
Important Figures in Reformed Epistemology
Alvin Plantinga – Contemporary philosopher at University of Notre Dame; author of seminal books like God and Other Minds, Warranted Christian Belief, and Knowledge and Christian Belief; argues for sensus divinitatis and that belief in God is properly basic
Nicholas Wolterstorff – Plantinga’s colleague at Calvin College; contributed to early formation of reformed epistemology tradition; focused on grounding religious belief in rational intuition
William Alston – Philosopher who applied Plantinga’s ideas to religious experience; argued perception of the divine provides epistemic justification for beliefs about God
Michael Sudduth – Contemporary philosopher who developed the extended model of the sensus divinitatis, arguing different intrinsic cognitive faculties collectively produce awareness of the divine
Kelly James Clark – Philosopher who examines issues relating to religious epistemology, God-given faculties for faith, and theological interpretation of cognitive science
Cornelius Van Til – 20th century Reformed theologian whose presuppositional apologetics deeply influenced Plantinga; stressed innate human knowledge of God suppressed by sin
John Calvin – 16th century theologian whose ideas undergird reformed epistemology; emphasized innate seed of religion in all people as part of being made in God’s image
Augustine – Early church father who spoke of an innate longing and sense for God present in human nature; important precursor to reformed epistemological tradition
Arguments Made by Reformed Epistemologists
– Belief in God is properly basic – it does not depend on inferences from other beliefs and does not require evidence to be rational
– People have an innate sensus divinitatis as part of the imago dei – a natural tendency to form beliefs about God in response to creation or sense of morality
– This sensus divinitatis yields belief in God that is prima facie justified, similar to how perceptual beliefs are prima facie justified by sense experiences
– Demanding evidence for properly basic beliefs is misguided since they do not derive from reasoning in the first place
– Belief in God could still count as knowledge if it arises from sensus divinitatis in proper circumstances, even without arguments or evidence
– Rebuts objections to theism by undermining skeptic’s ability to rely on rationality of their own mental faculties which arose from the blind forces of Darwinism rather than from God
– Contends evidence-based reasoning presume laws of logic, problem-solving skills, and other rational faculties whose reliability and purpose make most sense if human minds were designed by God with inherent purpose
– Seeks to put religious and naturalistic beliefs on equal footing by challenging expectation of arguments and evidence only for God beliefs but not naturalistic ones
– Avoids self-defeating efforts to prove God’s existence and instead shows Christian commitments are grounded in rational basic beliefs that require no proofs, just as most of our logical, mathematical, metaphysical, and moral beliefs require none
Criticisms of Reformed Epistemology
– Sets the bar too low by not requiring evidence to justify beliefs
– Opens door to irrationalism by defending false or unsupported beliefs as properly basic
– Sensations presumed to reflect sensus divinitatis could simply arise from psychological factors like wish fulfillment
– Contradicts centuries of apologetic tradition that valued providing affirmative arguments and evidence
– Does not adequately explain diversity of religious beliefs if sensus divinitatis is innate
– Definition of “properly basic” beliefs seems contrived to selectively exempt theism from needing justification
– Evolutionary origins of human cognition undermine claim it was designed to discern spiritual truths
– Idea of sensus divinitatis is ad hoc speculation invoked to avoid need for proofs of God
– Arguments showing internal inconsistencies or convincing falsehoods could still undermine warrant for God beliefs, even if not strictly evidential
– Perceptual beliefs are properly basic because of obvious practical life demands, which does not apply to theism
– Special pleading that faith does not require evidence that would be demanded of any other claim to avoid being dismissed
Responses from Reformed Epistemologists
– Sets no lower bar for truth than reliance on unproven assumptions of logic, mathematics, reliability of senses, etc. that critics inevitably rely upon
– Does not promote irrationalism but defends grounding faith in same properly basic cognitive sources critics use for their own reasoning
– Wish fulfillment tendencies presume awareness of the divine to fulfill wishes about in the first place
– Evidential arguments remain valuable but are not necessary for basic belief to be rational
– Universal innate tendencies can manifest in diverse ways, just as an innate sense of morality develops diversely yet shows commonality
– “Properly basic” is defined by foundational nature, not needing inferences from other beliefs
– Evolutionary arguments cut both ways; our cognitive faculties only yield truth if they align with intrinsic intentionality from a designer
– Idea of sensus divinitatis is no more ad hoc than proposing innate senses of logic, beauty, purpose, etc.
– Inconsistencies could defeat warrant but need not be propositional proofs – similar to how one can undermine perceptual claims without formal philosophical arguments
– Practical differences do not determine categories of properly basic beliefs, which depend on foundational versus inferential status
– Special pleading accusation relies on debatable presumption that inferential reasoning is the only valid path to knowledge