Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Meadors, John Thomas

Titel

The foundationalist debate and contemporary Christian apologetics

Ort / Verlag

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Erscheinungsjahr

1993

Quelle

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The purpose of the dissertation was to analyze the implications of the epistemological theory called foundationalism for a program of contemporary Christian apologetics. The first chapter defined foundationalism and apologetics and introduced the philosophers who are critically engaged in the dissertation. The philosophers examined were Alvin Plantinga, D. Z. Phillips, Richard Swinburne, and Basil Mitchell. The first chapter also indicated that one purpose of the dissertation was to defend the broad epistemological view called evidentialism. Chapter 2 examined the Reformed epistemology of Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga is known for his incisive critique of classical foundationalism and his defense of the view that belief in God is properly basic. Chapter 2 argued that Plantinga's "negative apologetics" does not succeed in showing that belief in God is rational. Chapter 3 examined the Wittgensteinian philosophy of D. Z. Phillips. It concluded that while Phillips offers insightful criticism of Plantinga and others, he does not show that it does not make sense to think of God in terms of a transcendent being. Chapter 4 contended that Richard Swinburne's evidentialist Christian philosophy does not suffer from the crippling defects of classical foundationalism. As a means of illuminating Swinburne's position, an examination was made of his philosophy of theism. Though he is certainly a foundationalist, Swinburne's thought is more nearly that of a "moderate" or "fallibilist" foundationalist. Basil Mitchell's "cumulative case" approach to the justification of religious belief was the subject of chapter 5. Mitchell defends the rationality of religious belief even though he doubts that conclusive arguments can be formulated to show that any religious perspective is true. The conclusion of the dissertation defended the rationality of, and mandate for, evidentialist Christian apologetics.