عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
Does belief in God require the arguments of natural theology to be rationally justified? Some Reformed epistemologists hold that the arguments of natural theology are not necessary for belief in God to be warrant. Moreover, in responding to the question of whether the arguments of natural theology can confirm or strengthen theistic beliefs, they maintain that since none of the traditional theistic arguments is true, they cannot confirm or strengthen theistic beliefs. However, in this paper, I will argue that although belief in God is properly basic, this belief - at least, in some circumstances - is still in need of the evidence and arguments of natural theology. Hence, natural theology still is inescapable in some contexts. I shall argue that in spite of what has been contended, Reformed thinkers endorse a kind of natural theology. I shall also argue that it is not true to say that all theistic arguments are flawed and useless; as we shall see, some arguments could be sufficient evidence for theistic beliefs. Accordingly, there is no conflict between basicality of belief in God and inferential arguments of natural theology.