Plantinga’s positive view was that belief in God can be properly basic. But Plantinga expects that this view will prompt the question: The Role of Arguments
Does this mean that arguments are completely irrelevant to religious belief?If so, you might think that this makes Plantinga’s view unacceptable. (A religious believer who takes any argumentation as completely irrelevant would seem like an unacceptably dogmatic believer.)But Plantinga denies that any such dogmatism is a consequence of his view. Plantinga explicitly states that his view does leave a significant role for arguments to play. (Though we’re not going to make much of it here, Plantinga’s reason for saying this relates to his comments about Barth’s Dilemma.)
Plantinga claimed that belief in God can be properly basic under certain conditions. Under those conditions, arguments have little use. Since the belief is basic, no argumentation is needed in order to render the belief reasonable. But under other conditions, where the belief in God cannot be taken as basic, for the belief is to be reasonable it must be supported with proof, reasons, or evidence. In those circumstances argumentation is required.
Remember that even basic perceptual beliefs can come under fire. And Plantinga thinks that something similar is the case with respect to belief in God. In certain circumstances, such belief is properly basic. But in other circumstances, the belief cannot be taken as basic. For example, if someone presents the theist with a powerful and convincing argument against God’s existence, Plantinga thinks that the theist cannot take the belief as basic. In such circumstances, the theist would have to defend her belief against the argument. In essence, the theist would have to give an argument that re-instates her belief in God.