Trons grund(er) : En jämförande analys av C. Stephen Evans och Alvin Plantinga när det gäller synen på förhållandet mellan religiös tro och förnuft

Sammanfattning: In this thesis I analyse C. Stephen Evans and Alvin Plantingas perspectives on the relationship between faith and reason. I consider whether their viewpoints are best seen as forms of fideism, rationalism or beyond these categories. I also discuss how to define fideism, rationalism, faith, belief and reason. I argue for the categorization model of weak and strong fideism and rationalism against possible alternatives because of its simplicity when comparing different perspectives. While Evans considers his viewpoint on the relationship between faith and reason as a form of fideism, Plantinga rejects the label on his perspective. Evans expresses that faith in some sense is beyond reason, but that reason has the possibility to become self-critical and be more in tune with religious faith. Plantinga suggests that belief in God can be a properly basic belief. He argues that it can be rational to believe in God without arguments. Even though their perspectives have differences between them, and both have fideistic and non-fideistic tendencies, I argue that their viewpoints are best categorized as weak fideism. Both understand reason in a way that is highly dependent on their theistic beliefs. I argue that reason needs to be defined as a capacity that to some extent transcends different worldviews to be meaningful. I furthermore conclude that fideism is a valuable term in philosophy of religion if defined clearly and pejorative uses are excluded.