首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      

保证知识论与基督教信念
引用本文:禤庆文.保证知识论与基督教信念[J].逻辑学研究,2010(2):87-101.
作者姓名:禤庆文
作者单位:中山大学逻辑与认知研究所
摘    要:Alvin Plantinga后期建立了保证的知识论,并在此架构下对有神信念辩护。他主要是回应启蒙运动以来的对有神信念知识上批判。Plantinga认为这些启蒙批判事先预设了有神信念为假,因此不是知识上有效的反驳。有些批评认为Plantinga的论证结构有问题。本文介绍这些批评,指出Planinga的论证有两个背景,分别是保证的知识结构和改革宗的预设护教学。补充完整背景后,Plantinga的论证策略不仅可以理解,也可以回应批评。尽管Plantinga的论证可成立,但他对启蒙批判的理解有误。本文指出,启蒙批判的本体立场乃是自然主义,并介绍反自然主义的论证,结论是有神信念比之自然主义有知识上的优势。

关 键 词:规范反驳  事实反驳  预设  保证

Warrant and Christian Belief
Qingwen Xuan.Warrant and Christian Belief[J].Studies in Logic,2010(2):87-101.
Authors:Qingwen Xuan
Institution:Qingwen Xuan (Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University)
Abstract:In Warranted Christian Belief (WCB), Alvin Plantinga responses to the de jure objections to the Christian belief. The de jure objections question the epistemic legitimacy of Christian belief. They charge that Christian belief, whether true or not, is epistemic defected, such as not justified, not rational or not warranted. Plantinga contends that de jure objections in fact presuppose the falsehood of Christian belief, and hence are not successful objections to the Christian belief's epistemic status. Critics question the candidacy of this reasoning, and argue that de jure objections are not necessary to presuppose the falsehood of the Christian belief. This paper investigates the structure of warrant epistemology, and concludes that the four elements that can contribute to the unwarranted Christian belief are all related to its falsehood. In this sense Plantinga can charge de jure as presupposing the falsehood of Christian belief. This paper points out that WCB has another background, the presuppositionalism apologetics in the Christian Reformed tradition. In this presuppositional trajectory, Plantinga argues not only that de jure objections presuppose the falsehood of Christian belief, but also his main thesis as "if Christian belief is true, then it is warranted". Though Plantinga's argument is sound, his interpretation to the de jure objections seems wrong, and this paper suggests a possible way out for the de jure objections. This paper argues that de jure objections are ontologically committed to naturalism, and introduces the argument against naturalism. This paper concludes that the Christian belief has a comparative epistemic advantage over naturalism, and in this sense it can be said the defense for the Christian belief is successful.
Keywords:
本文献已被 CNKI 维普 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号