The Problem of the Criterion

Roderick Chisholm's "The Problem of the Criterion" examines a fundamental epistemological dilemma that bears significantly on rational discourse about God's existence. The monograph addresses the ancient problem of how one can identify instances of knowledge without first establishing criteria for knowledge, while simultaneously being unable to establish such criteria without already possessing knowledge. This circular predicament, traced back to ancient skeptics, poses particular challenges for both theistic and atheistic arguments that claim epistemic superiority.

Chisholm distinguishes three possible responses to this dilemma: particularism, methodism, and skepticism. Particularists begin with specific instances of presumed knowledge and work toward general criteria. Methodists start with criteria for knowledge and then identify particular instances. Skeptics conclude that the circularity renders knowledge impossible. Chisholm defends a particularist approach, arguing that humans possess immediate knowledge of certain propositions that can serve as starting points for developing epistemic criteria.

The work's significance for the God debate emerges through its implications for religious epistemology. Chisholm's particularism suggests that some beliefs might be properly basic or self-evident without requiring external justification. This framework provides philosophical support for reformed epistemologists who argue that belief in God can be rational without evidential arguments. Conversely, the problem of the criterion challenges evidentialist atheists who demand that religious beliefs meet specific epistemic standards, as these critics must justify their own criteria without circular reasoning.

Chisholm employs careful analytical philosophy methods, drawing on historical sources while developing precise distinctions. His approach influences how philosophers assess competing claims about religious knowledge. The monograph demonstrates that both theistic and atheistic positions face the same fundamental epistemological challenge: justifying their starting points and criteria for evaluation without vicious circularity.

The text's enduring contribution lies in showing that the God debate cannot be resolved simply by appealing to epistemic standards, as these standards themselves require justification. This levels the philosophical playing field between theists and atheists, suggesting that both positions involve fundamental commitments that cannot be neutrally adjudicated. Chisholm's analysis thus reveals the deeper epistemological complexity underlying debates about God's existence, challenging simplistic appeals to reason or evidence from any perspective.