rationality of faith

)w hat is common and di fferent in two great thinkers’ views?rationality of faith is one of the most important issues in contemporary philosophy of religion that most philosophers of religion have discussed it . alvin plantinga and richard swinburne with theistic approach have discussed this subject. swinburne with evidentialist approach concludes that religious belief like every another belief can be rational only if it has evidence and of cource theists have evidence for their belives so they are justified and rational. but plantinga criticizes evidentialism and classical foundationalism . instead of justification, he uses concept of warrant and finally concludes that christian believes have proper warrant so christians are rational in their believes. in this project i want to survey and compare this two great thinkers ’views. my questions in this project are: 1)what criticisms plantinga can has to swinburne approach? 2) is not plantinga’s analogy argument a kind of evidentialism? 3) way does plantinga use concept of warrant instead of justification? 4) what is difference between warrant and justification? 5)are christian believes properly warranted? 6