David Reiter

In this paper I explore and defend an interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of the sense of divinity which implies the following claim: (CSD) All sane cognizers know that God exists. I argue that externalism about knowledge comports well with claim CSD, and I explore various questions about the character of the theistic belief implied by CSD. For example, I argue that CSD implies that all sane cognizers possess functionally rational theistic belief. In the final sections of the paper, I respond to two main objections and argue that CSD is consistent with the existence of various kinds of atheists and agnostics.

In the final chapter of Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Planting a presents an “evolutionary argument against naturalism” (where naturalism is the claim that there are no supernatural beings). According to this argument, the conjunction of naturalism and evolution cannot be rationally believed by anyone who understands its epistemic implications. In this paper, I argue that if Plantinga’s evolutionary argument is sound, it follows that (what I call) perceptive naturalists have no propositional knowledge. Since it is plausible that perceptive naturalists do have some propositional knowledge, I infer that the evolutionary argument (EA) is unsound. However, I conclude the paper with the suggestion that even if EA is unsound, it may still provide important insights about the epistemic shortcomings of naturalism.

The transcendental argument for God’s existence (“TAG”) claims that the existence of the Triune God is a metaphysically necessary precondition for the most basic features of human life and experience. Philosopher Sean Choi has recently argued that TAG is best understood as having the following argument pattern: (1) p, (2) Necessarily, if p, then G (God exists), and therefore (3) G. In this note, I pose a dilemma argument for the proponent of the transcendental argument (understood this way). My hope is that the dilemma argument will spur further development and clarification of exactly what the transcendental argument is.

In this note, we present a new observation of relevance to Aquinas’s third way. Scholars have noted that Aquinas recognizes the existence of a multiplicity of necessary beings, but it has not been recognized that Aquinas’s views concerning the eternality of the world commit him to the epistemic possibility that the world itself is a necessary being. We explain how Aquinas is committed to this possibility and explore its bearing on the success or failure of the third way as a demonstration of God’s existence

My original dilemma claimed that the transcendental argument for God’s existence is either superfluous (if the goal is to establish the actual existence of God) or inadequate (if the goal is to establish the necessary existence of God). In this rejoinder to James Anderson, I begin by noting some important points of agreement. I then clarify the differences between pattern-I, pattern-II, and pattern-III theistic arguments. I comment on each of Anderson’s three proposed lines of response and defend by original dilemma, on the assumption that TAG is formulated as a pattern-II argument

In the final chapter of Warrant and Proper Function, Alvin Planting a presents an “evolutionary argument against naturalism” (where naturalism is the claim that there are no supernatural beings). According to this argument, the conjunction of naturalism and evolution cannot be rationally believed by anyone who understands its epistemic implications. In this paper, I argue that if Plantinga’s evolutionary argument is sound, it follows that (what I call) perceptive naturalists have no propositional knowledge. Since it is plausible that perceptive naturalists do have some propositional knowledge, I infer that the evolutionary argument (EA) is unsound. However, I conclude the paper with the suggestion that even if EA is unsound, it may still provide important insights about the epistemic shortcomings of naturalism.

Mylan Engel, Jr. has proposed a straightforward and attractive explanation of the internalism-externalism controversy (IEC) in contemporary epistemology. Engel's explanation posits that there are two distinct kinds of epistemic justification, and the IEC has arisen because epistemologists have inadvertently overlooked the fact that they are not all concerned with the same subject matter (internalists are concerned with one kind of epistemic justification while externalists are concerned with another kind). In this paper, I will explain two difficulties with Engel's proposed explanation. The first difficulty concerns the claim that there are two kinds of epistemic justification. The second difficulty concerns whether Engel's proposed explanation is adequate to explain internalist concerns.