Page 126 - A Study of Theological Responses to Alvin Plantinga’s Aquinas/Calvin Model of Warranted Christian Belief - Kees van Kralingen
P. 126
Chapter 7
Beilby’s objection is that the IIHS, because it is a process and not a faculty, may not He refers to Plantinga’s Warrant: The Current Debate “process reliabilism is too permissive – can fail to be warranted.” the way Plantinga describes the process of the IIHS when he states that “a belief can have forming process of this special kind.”
“In other words, even if a part of humanity’s native noetic equipment, say sensus divinitatis, produced a belief which met Plantinga’s criterion for t isn’t obvious that beliefs produced by the internal testimony of not a part of humanity’s original equipment, would also be warranted.”
Beilby is not satisfied by Plantinga’s assertion that this process can be regar
that “Plantinga must make the deliverances of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the relevant respects lar situations.” But to specify what ‘the relevant respects’ are is a complex matter is “that beliefs produced by the IIHS must be phenomenologically similar from the – than seem to be produced apart from them.”
WCB
Beilby, ‘Plantinga’s Model of Warranted Christian Belief,’ 131 referring to WCB
WCB
Epistemology as Theology
Epistemology as Theology WCD
WCB Epistemology as Theology
Epistemology as Theology
Epistemology as Theology
Epistemology as Theology
124
