Bi-Level Evidentialism and Reformed Apologetics

Abstract

In this paper I apply William Alston's "epistemic level distinctions" to the debate between evidentialist and anti-evidentialist approaches to Christian apologetics in the Reformed tradition. I first clarify the nature of this debate by showing that it rests fundamentally on a tension between the desire to have a comprehensive Christian apologetic and the belief that the Holy Spirit plays a special epistemic role in belief-formation, such that certain beliefs are formed and justified by conditions unique to Christian religious experience. Secondly, I argue that even if S's belief that p is immediately justified (through such privileged modes of belief-formation), (1) an evidentialist requirement can be placed on the higher-level belief that P* (p is immediately justified) and (2) apologetics can draw on the reasons which confer justification on P*, thereby providing indirect support for p.