Coherentism and Foundationalism

E.g. God is seen as a desirable explanation for motion and cause. Individually, these arguments have been criticised, but F.R Tennant has argued that the arguments have a cumulative effect - together they form a

How is the term justification defined by scholars? What is your own definition based on your research?

When comparing parsimony of the theories, both theories appear equal. Both theories can be stated easily. It is only after applying the theories do the constructs become more complex and varying.

This leads us to our next premise, premise II, which states there are rational beliefs that are not supported by sufficient evidence. Clark identifies these rational beliefs as those acquired through sensory experience and beliefs that are self-evident. He supports this premise by giving examples of some of these beliefs “..The sky is blue, grass is green ..”(139). He goes on to say, “ ...every proposition is either true or false..”(139). I think that by Clark including these examples of beliefs through sensory experiences and self-evidence, he seems to be saying that through our experiences, one can acquire beliefs even if our beliefs are false. It is rational to believe that the sky is blue because it is a belief we acquire through seeing the sky is blue. But according to Clark, seeing that the sky is blue is not enough sufficient evidence (like the sufficient

Aristotle proposes an argument called the ‘Regress argument,’ (Wrenn) this argument is essentially the debate of knowledge versus belief using the epistemological theories of knowledge. Aristotle takes the side of foundationalism based on the simple fact that it defends knowledge and it that knowledge requires basic justified beliefs. In the argument it states that coherentism is simply beliefs supported by other beliefs therefore leading to no concrete knowledge behind the beliefs. For example, if I say that next month is the April, it is justified by two other beliefs, that this month is March and the month after April is May (Delaney, 1976). This example displays that for justification of coherentism it is simply derived from further beliefs. However, for foundationalism, all beliefs are justified, which we can

Edmund Gettier’s argument that justified true belief is not a sufficient definition for knowledge is correct. There are many scenarios in which the conditions for justified true belief are met but cannot be said to qualify as knowledge; therefore justified true belief is not a sufficient definition for knowledge.

The fifth and final argument of Craig's is that God can be immediately known and experience, which he states is not so much a proof as it is an escape from proof. (Craig Pg. 26) For those willing to cast aside the arguments, God can be known outside of them according to Craig. For those who have religious experiences, they claim to know God and have experienced him and this is what is known as "properly basic beliefs." These beliefs cannot be proven, yet they remain solid beliefs because they are similar to other basic beliefs that could never be proven. For example, how can we prove that we are not simply a brain floating in chemicals being stimulated by electrodes? (Craig pg. 26) We can't, yet we believe that we are not and this is what a basic belief is. There is reassurance in

Emory makes a great point based on Russell’s argument that based on normal human perceptions it is easy to believe that our senses can be skewed and give us false data, and can be changed based on conditions of either the person or the environment in which they are viewed. For example, even texture can change on an object, when dry fur can feel soft, light and bouncy. If the condition changed, such as if the fur got wet, it would feel completely different, it would be heavier, soggy and greasy in some ways to the touch. If color and texture can possibly be abstract, it can be easy to fall into the belief of whether everyday life isn’t subjective as well or even exists. And based on that logic there seems to be no point at all to not believe

Besides BonJour's argument of illustrative examples, moderate rationalism is defended by two intimately related dialectical arguments. The argument is that the denial of a priori justification will lead to a severe skepticism, in which only the most direct experience could be justified. Stemming from this severe skepticism, comes the stronger argument that argumentation itself becomes impossible. This essay will describe the distinct segments of the argument and will demonstrate the relationship between the two arguments.

Even though the coherence theory of truth differs from the coherence theory of knowledge, which states that a belief is justified if the belief coheres with a set of beliefs that forms a coherent system (Audi,

Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties

The purpose of this essay is to justify why coherence theory of justification is preferable to a foundationalist theory of justification, I will start by explaining what Coherence the theory of justification and foundationalist theory of justification is. Coherence theory of justification also known as coherentism, is a theory of epistemic justification, this theory implies that in order for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of belief, For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that creates that system must "cohere" with one another. (Murphy, 2007)

Are there any compelling reasons for thinking that either foundationalism or coherentism about justification must be true?

Faith and reason were two modes of belief that dominated the history of Western Civilization. Both faith and reason were popularized as tools to understand the universe in Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian eras. By conflicting with each other, these two modes of belief sparked a lot of controversy. Reason or rationality is belief based on concrete evidence and logic. The development of one’s reason relies heavily on observation and questioning. Greco-Roman philosophers believed in the power of the human mind to understand the world. So in order to find ultimate truth, Greco-Roman philosophers dedicated their lives to perfecting their reasoning skills and encouraged those around them to do the same. Contradictory to reason, faith is the

Need anymore be said?33 The argument is easier to follow, though by no means clear, if we take into account a ’missing’ or explanatory premise: