Arguments Against Reformed Epistemology

Reformed Epistemology is a school of thought regarding rationality of religious belief. The core of the thought is the idea that belief in god is a properly basic belief; and does not need to be derived from other truths for it to be reasonable. It is important to correctly stress what ‘basic’ truly means, a basic believe is one that is rationally held and yet not derived from other beliefs that one holds The Great Pumpkin Objection was put forward by Alvin Plantinga in 1983 and is the main criticism against Reformed Epistemology. The objection states that if belief in god is properly basic, then why cant anything at all be properly basic, like the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween. He continue and states, “It is tempting to raise the following sort of question. If belief in God can be properly basic, why cannot just any belief be properly

Could we not say the same for any bizarre aberration we can think of? What about voodoo or astrology? What about the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween? Could I properly take that as basic? Suppose I believe that if I flap my arms with sufficient vigor, I can take off and fly about the room; could I defend myself against the charge of irrationality by claiming this belief is basic? If we say that belief in God is properly basic, will we not be committed to holding that just anything, or nearly anything, can properly be taken as basic, thus throwing wide the gates to irrationalism and superstition?” (The Great Pumpkin Objection p.74). this is the underlying thesis in Plantingas argument, what is to stop people simply justifying anything they wish simply because they belief its basic, this lead to the example of the Great Pumpkin. In the comic Peanuts, the character believes that there exists a great pumpkin who rises from a pumpkin patch every Halloween and gives presents to the children that have been good, much like Santa Clause. Therefore why is