In 50 words or less...

[Marrow Man]

Can someone give a short critique of Reformed Epistemology in 50 words or less?

 

[VictorBravo]

Maybe I'm missing the question, but there are a lot of Reformed epistemological viewpoints. It would be hard to critique them all in 50 words or less.

But I'll take a stab at it: a Reformed epistemology takes as its primary truth that faith precedes understanding, Heb. 11:3, and that our ability to know anything is God ordained and granted, Rom. 1:18-20.

If you want to criticize it, you must decide that these passages (and many others) are untrue.

 

[Davidius]

I think that "Reformed Epistemology" is Alvin Plantinga's "school."

 

[VictorBravo]

Thanks David. Shows how out of the loop I am.

I recall Plantinga's point is that beliefs are justifiable if they are properly basic, meaning, in short, that if the beliefs are consistent with our sensible world view, they do not require any further justification.

And the sensible world view is just that, a world view that one's created and normal thinking apparatus derives from his senses.

So, I suppose a criticism of it might be that it avoids the question of epistemology by redefining it, although I don't think it is quite that simple.

 

[Grymir]

Umm, are you looking for something like on the Wikipedia page ("reformed epistemology") about the 'proofs of God', or are you looking for the philosophical 'epistemology', ie, how do we know what we know?

 

[Marrow Man]

Actually, I tend to sort of "like" Plantinga's ideas with regard to RE, but I was wondering what critiques (as in objections) there may be toward his approach out there. Sorry, my question was written sort of hastily and was not very clear.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Not 50 words or less but it is a critique: Quodlibet Online Journal: Beyond Plantinga and Improper Function: The Inexcusability of Unbelief - by Owen Anderson

 

[Confessor]

That article was good, but he could have reduced it quite a bit. A lot of repetition (without much elaboration) of his main points.

To sum it up, though, Plantinga does not offer any reason for conversion, or any need of redemption. His only "argument" is that Christians are within their epistemic rights to believe in God, but not whether God exists or whether unbelievers ought to believe in God.

From what I have seen, this all stems from a theological problem of Plantinga's: he views total depravity as a natural inability rather than a moral inability. For instance, he makes sin's noetic effects analogous to blurry vision, rather than analogous to a self-imposed blindness.

Sorry, that's about ninety words...
-----Added 11/29/2008 at 05:33:46 EST-----
Okay, how did I not notice how old this thread was?

 

[davidsuggs]

Plantinga's "New Reformed Epistemology" is wrong because it only argues that Christianity is justified because it is "properly basic". It does not give any reason to think that all the other views in the world are unjustified.

Hope that helps. Tried to be basic