Interview with Alvin Plantinga

Last month professor Alvin Plantinga came to PUCRS (Porto Alegre – Brazil) and gave two lectures, talking about his theories and his work. We discussed epistemology and also philosophy of religion and metaphysics (you can see the event’s program below). We are very stimulated by the issues and questions raised by Plantinga’s work. During the event, I invited professor Plantinga to give us an interview, which now I present to you, my fellow reader.

Luis Rosa – Professor Plantinga, what is the main goal of Warrant and Proper Function?

Alvin Plantinga - The main goal of WPF was to come up with a correct analysis of knowledge. The novel element in the analysis is the use of the notion of proper function, which was absent from the other accounts of knowledge. I’m happy to note that other philosophers have begun to use this notion, or something similar.

Luis Rosa – Given the current debate, what is the actual status of your analysis of knowledge? Do you think it is successfull?

Alvin Plantinga - I’m still enthusiastic about this analysis of knowledge. As subsequent discussion has shown, it is hard to get the analysis exactly right; but I’m quite optimistic about the fine-tuning of the analysis to be found in Warranted Christian Belief.

Luis Rosa – What is the theoretical advantage of your analysis of knowledge, if there is such an advantage, over the “no-defeater” analyses? Is the concept of warrant, as defined in your work, a superior conceptual tool for dealing with epistemic matters?

Alvin Plantinga - The problem with non-defeater analyses is that the notion of a defeater is itself an epistemic notion in need of analysis. I think that notion is properly analyzed in terms of proper function

Luis Rosa – How do you handle internalist considerations on rationality and evidential support, used in the formulation of counter-examples to your externalist analysis of knowledge?

Alvin Plantinga - I don’t think there are any successful counterexamples of my account of knowledge.

Luis Rosa – What exactly is the role you attribute to epistemology in the religious debate?

Alvin Plantinga - Many opponents of religion, including some of the new atheists, claim that religious belief is irrational.  It is important to show that these claims are incorrect and really baseless.

 Luis Rosa – How exactly do you explain the claim that theistic belief is epistemically basic? Is it basic in the sense that beliefs in necessary truths are said to be ‘basic’?

Alvin Plantinga - It is basic in the same sense, but is nonetheless of quite a different sort; it isn’t self-evident.  In the same way memory and perceptual beliefs are basic, but not self-evident.  Self-evident beliefs are only one of the kinds of belief that are or can be properly basic.

Luis Rosa - Can you explain how knowledge depends on the existence of a designer?

Alvin Plantinga - Here the basic idea is that knowledge involves the notion of proper function (see question 1), and the notion of proper function can’t be analyzed in naturalistic terms, as I argue in Warrant and Proper Function.  If both these things are true, there is knowledge only if naturalism is false.  So knowledge depends on the falsehood of naturalism.  It’s a step further to say that knowledge depends on there being a designer. Thanks very much!

So that is how the interview ends. I am very glad professor Plantinga answered to it. Now we can continue the debate. Are you satisfied with Plantingas theses? Let us discuss it!

Advertisement