The Difference between Lewis

The Difference between Lewis - He wants to establish it is...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The Difference between Lewis's argument and Plantinga's A. Lewis's argument is what is known as a "transcendental argument". If naturalism were true, then rational knowledge would be impossible. So, for rational knowledge (knowledge by rational inference) to be possible, naturalism must be false. This doesn't prove theism (since naturalism & theism aren't the only alternatives), but it does give a reason for thinking naturalism to be false: we do have rational knowledge, so naturalism must be false. B. Plantinga's conclusion is less amibitious.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: He wants to establish: it is impossible to believe rationally in naturalism. Belief in naturalism leads to an epistemic catastrophe (in which nothing we believe is rational). This isn't a transcendental argument. Naturalism could be true, and we could have rational beliefs, so long as we didn't believe naturalism to be true. However, it does create obvious problems for the naturalist. At the very least, it should motivate the naturalist to look at alternative worldviews that avoid this catastrophe....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online