In This Essay Plantinga Argues That It Is Rational to Believe

In this essay Plantinga argues that it is rational to believe in God despite the lack of evidence for such belief. Those (such as W.K. Clifford) who insist that we must have evidence for all our beliefs simply fail to make their case because the evidentialists have not set forth clear criteria that would account for all the clear cases of justified beliefs and that would exclude the belief in God. Plantinga outlines the position of the foundationalist-evidentialist as claiming that all justified beliefs must either (i) be "properly basic" by fulfilling certain criteria or (ii) be based on other beliefs that eventually result in a treelike construction with properly basic beliefs at the bottom or foundation. Plantinga shows that many beliefs we seem to be justified in holding do not fit into the foundationalist framework: such beliefs as memory beliefs (e.g., that I ate breakfast this morning), belief in an external world, and belief in other minds. These beliefs do not depend on other beliefs, yet neither are they self-evident, incorrigible (impossible not to believe), or evident to the senses. Having shown the looseness of what we can accept as "properly basic," Plantinga next shows that the Protestant reformers saw belief in God as "properly basic." He asks us to consider this belief as a legitimate option and examines possible objections to it.
-Plantinga argues that only religious beliefs are properly basic.