Evidentialism Vs Classical Foundationalism

In this paper, I will argue why it is not necessary to have evidence in order for our religious beliefs to be rational or moral. Many people feel that in order for something to be true or rational, it must have evidence. People like this are known as evidentialists, and they argue that religious belief can only be justified with sufficient evidence. However, evidentialism is wrong. Classical foundationalism is the way of structuring evidentialist thinking. The core of classical foundationalism argues that beliefs can be based on other beliefs, which are known as basic beliefs. There are certain traits that a belief must have first before it is determined to be basic. In order for a belief to be basic, it must be incorrigible or self-evident.

Reformed epistemology argues for the belief in things, including God, without sufficient evidence. The basis of this argument is that, as humans, we believe and accept many things without evidence. Under classical foundationalism, things such as our memory, our perception, and testimonies would be insufficient basis for beliefs because they are dubitable, and therefore not self-evident or incorrigible. However, reformed epistemology reminds us that we do trust and belle in things that lack evidence, and cannot be deemed basic beliefs. For example, we believe in the past, though we have no evidence of it, it is not incorrigible nor self-evident. Regardless, the past still exists. Plantinga also enforces the concept that our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty. This means that it is rational to hold a belief without evidence until evidence is discovered. The presence of our knowledge of religion or God is enough for us to base beliefs on. This way of establishing our beliefs on our intellect, according to reformed epistemology, is only discredited when we find evidence to disprove them. Given this school of thought, religious beliefs are totally rational and moral without evidence, because they are innocent and founded in

What this means is that its structure can be applied to many different scenarios in hopes of justifying them the same way. For example, Clifford discusses a scenario in which a ship-owner is aware of dangerous damage to his ship which could potentially cause harm to others. He does not do anything about it, and as a result, the ship sinks and kills the people aboard. Reformed epistemology could be held responsible for this shipwreck, because it opens the door for believing things without evidence. Because reformed epistemology accepts beliefs without the need for evidence, people feel they can choose what they want to believe. In this case, the ship-owner had sufficient evidence of danger, yet he chose to believe otherwise. Reformed epistemology allows there to be a choice, which in part can cause people to act