Belief has to start somewhere. You need a basic belief. Should your belief in God be basic?


Questions: Perhaps unless there is an honest God who made us we cannot trust anything we think we know?  Without him, there would be just random patterns that we cannot rely on.  Perhaps God is a basic belief, something we need to believe in in order to have beliefs at all?  Perhaps it is okay to take a leap of faith in God for time will tell if our faith gets confirmed by him?  Can we just assume God for it provides explanations for all things?



Think of a belief you have. See how it is based on something else you believe or a number of beliefs. Then each of these beliefs depends on a belief or beliefs too. That cannot go on endlessly. Belief has to stop somewhere. Or it is better to say it has to start somewhere. Believers in God say the best way to start and the wisest is to start with belief in God. They see God as a basic belief, the belief the others come out of and depend on.

Not all think this basic belief is to be believed with no evidence. Evidence, if there is a God, will surely be a gift from God. There would be no true respect for God if you believe and don't care about the evidence.

Some say God is to be believed without evidence. They say evidence does not matter even if there is evidence. What you need is to believe in a God of truth before you can trust anything at all. So belief in evidence then depends on belief in God. Belief in belief depends on God. Belief itself depends on God.

The Bible imagines it gives evidence for God and for being his word.  Jesus said that if you won't believe in him then at least believe in his wonders and miracles  All that certainly denies that God is basic.



Plantinga and McGrath believe that the only way that belief in God can be rational if there is no evidence for God is if God is a basic belief. They agree that we can give no reasons why reason and the senses and the memory and science can be true so they are believed in without reasons and because we need to believe them for if we don’t we will psychologically know and believe nothing. Plantinga thinks that God is a basic belief because if there is a good God who has made us then we can depend on reason and the senses and memory and on science for he is honest and has made them reliable for he created them. But belief in a force that made things evolve and which is as impersonal as electricity and which cannot mislead us would be a better idea for it is simpler and there is no need for a good God. This power would not be God. One can simply believe that the senses are real and have taught us reason. You know that when you see blue you really see blue even if the blue object does not exist and is an illusion so you know you should trust the senses. This is wiser than complicating things with a God you cannot give evidence for.
If you believe in this God in order that you may ground your faith in reason etc then God is not God to you. You have him for grounding reason and not for himself. Plantinga then needs to realise that unbelief in God is the way to ground it. At least it avoids the contradiction of a good God who wants you to use him in the name of morality. That would not be morality but a lie.
Plantinga has no right to say that God is a basic belief when he has not dealt with the evidence against God. It is one thing to say that it is okay to believe in a God without reasons if it is a basic belief but it is another to say it is okay to do this and not look at all the evidences against God first. He declared that attempts to prove God did not provide evidence for God but warrant for God. He defined warrant as the inclination to believe in God and argued that this inclination was placed in us by God and it justifies belief in God for it is like God telling us through our needs that he exists. So if you are inclined to believe in God then you can rationally believe that God exists (page 70, What is Faith?). But most people have not believed in his kind of all-good God. And the same could be said to prove the existence of the tooth fairy. What about those who have no such inclination? It is more proper to say we have an inclination to believe in the possibility of a happy life after death. The more you doubt the existence of God the less inclination you have to believe in God so Plantinga’s theory does not help the case for God at all.
The conflict between the existence of evil and the existence of an all-good God which religion says is a mystery and cannot be completely solved means that God is beyond good and evil for he causes both not that it is a mystery. Why? Because it is less of a mystery for God to be beyond them. That gets rid of the mystery. Kenny agrees (page 88, What is Faith?). This thing is ignored by Christians and Plantinga does just that.

Blind faith in God is the worst form of blind faith. It is very extreme for it is about the biggest thing imaginable. What could be bigger than God?


If you want to invoke God as a neat explanation or the neatest for all things you have to do a lot of research.  You need to know all the important things.  The obstacle will be that God is not a neat explanation for innocent suffering.  And if an intelligent creator is needed it need not be a loving one.


We see that only blind faith underpins acceptance of the loving Christian God.  And that faith is justified by guesses and lies.  Blind faith and wishful thinking can easily be confused.  We see why.


No Copyright