Skip to main content
Article
The Crucial Disanalogies Between Properly Basic Belief and Belief in God
Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies Faculty Publications
  • Richard Grigg, Ph.D., Sacred Heart University
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-1-1990
Abstract

The antifoundationalist defence of belief in God set forth by Alvin Plantinga has been widely discussed in recent years. Classical foundationalism assumes that there are two kinds of beliefs that we are justified in holding: beliefs supported by evidence, and basic beliefs. Our basic beliefs are those bedrock beliefs that need no evidence to support them and upon which our other beliefs must rest. For the foundationalist, the only beliefs that can be properly basic are either self-evident, or incorrigible, or evident to the senses. Belief in God is none of these. Thus, says the foundationalist, belief in God is justified only if there is sufficient evidence to back it up.

Comments

Originally published:

Grigg, Richard. "The Crucial Disanalogies between Properly Basic Belief and Belief in God." Religious Studies 26.3 (1990): 389-401. Link to journal online: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=res
Citation Information
Richard Grigg. "The Crucial Disanalogies Between Properly Basic Belief and Belief in God" (1990)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/richard_grigg/4/