Talk:Reformed epistemology

Philosophy: Epistemology / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of religion

Theology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Article as a Whole[edit]

To my mind, this piece is amateurish, lacks continuity, and goes pretty far afield from its title's subject matter. I'd say a good trimming is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.12.180 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Pumpkin" Objection[edit]

It seems that we need to have some indication of Plantinga and others' responses to the "Great Pumpkin" argument. Gabrielthursday 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since the criticism is lifted from a quotation in Plantinga's work itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.178.18.185 (talk) 13:05, October 25, 2006 (UTC)

If nobody minds, I'd like to ad some more by way of Plantinga's response tot he Great Pumpkin objection, namely the reply that sure, if the believer in the great pumpkin really does acquire her belief via belief forming structures that are working properly, then they can be properly basic. But this is only a problem for the Reformed Epistemologist if Great Pumpkin belief is true. Beretta NZ 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean false? 1Z 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it reads as if Plantinga's response to the GP is that there might be some criterion we don't know about that rules out the GP as being properly basic but not God. That can't really be his response. Surely he has actually proposed a criterion he considers reasonable that allows God but bars GP? ciphergoth (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Ciphergoth. I read and re-read Plantiga's response and it just doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't know if this is a weakness in his argument or if it hasn't been described very well. It doesn't really seem to be much of a response at all. Lynden Price (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this article have Plantinga's responses to DeRose? Doesn't make much sense to not include them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.110.141 (talk) 18:12, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Rational fideism[edit]

Is Rational fideism related to this? ciphergoth (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found a reference to Rational fideism outside from the singular source from Geocities. And that article uses the term in a generic sense.Lamorak (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C S Lewis[edit]

I don't understand what bearing the Lewis quotes have on this topic. How does his definition of faith refute Reformed epistemology? Nitpyck (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CS Lewis quotes and discussion are a distraction from the topic of reformed epistemology and should be removed or relocated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.115.121 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section argues against positions not taken.[edit]

Plantinga does not argue that belief in God is necessarily warranted, he argues that it is reasonably expected to be and that this may be the case. It is the possibility not the actuality that is proported to undermines the opposing views. The criticism section contains a significant about of material that is confused about this point and thus requires major edits to correct the contusion. If there are no other volunteers, I will endeavor to perform the necessary edits, which will necessarily require removal of significant amounts of text.

Comments?

KSci (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further edits, citations, and reduced redundancy needed[edit]

This article includes considerable redundant material and is in need of further work to assure that the text does not include malformed sentences and provides a rational progression of thought.

KSci (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to edit section "Faith as a supplement to rationality" Input appreciated.[edit]

The section mentioned does not define the term "faith", which is used throughout. Reformed Epistemology is an argument saying that there is warrant for belief, and does not address "faith" (whatever that means in this paragraph). My impression is that this paragraph seems as though it may be a rabbit hole with no actual bearing on the article topic. Discussion on this would be greatly appreciated.

KSci ^(talk) 02:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Upon further consideration, proposal withdrawn. Subsection rename may be more appropriate instead. KSci ^(talk) 03:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Other objections' subsection[edit]

The 'Other objections' subsection needs to be condensed or removed in my judgement. I acknowledge there are two citations, but it reads like incoherent amateur original research, especially towards the end; we are told that a supposed criticism of Reformed epistemology is that Plantinga didn't at the same time address objections to divine authorship and biblical inerrancy! I hope it doesn't really need to be said, but Reformed epistemology and biblical inerrancy (etc.) are two different concepts, and it's acceptable to advocate one without simultaneously defending the other. Ypna (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC) @KSci[reply]