Advertisement

Reduction

  • James Kraft
Chapter
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

The time has arrived to talk about the view that confidence is reduced in epistemic peer religious disagreements. The treatment here assumes that the Conservatism Principle and the Conservatism Frustrater described in Chapter 4 apply to religious disagreements just as much as they do to ordinary ones, and here they are again:

Principle of Conservatism:

If there are no decisive grounds for questioning the justification of the belief, then conserve the belief with just as much confidence in its justification.

Conservatism Frustrater:

If relevant symmetries surface making error possibilities relevant because one sees no way in which one is better epistemically situated for a belief than the other person, then there are decisive grounds for questioning the justification of the belief.

Conservatism Frustrater, Possible Worlds:

If relevant symmetries surface making one suspect that an error-producing or belief-abandoning possible world is nearby, then there are decisive grounds for questioning the justification of the belief.

Keywords

Religious Belief True Belief Religious Experience Religious Disagreement Epistemic Situation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 271–72.Google Scholar
  2. William Alston, “Religious Diversity and Perceptual Knowledge of God,” Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988): 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    David Christensen, “Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy,” Philosophy Compass 4, no. 5 (2009): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Richard Fumerton, “Theories of Justification,” in Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Paul Moser (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 204–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Richard Feldman, Epistemology (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003), 66.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Jerome Gellman, “Religious Diversity and the Epistemic Justification of Religious Belief,” Faith and Philosophy 10 (1993): 345–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniel Batson, “Rational Processing or Rationalization?: The Effect of Discontinuing Information on a Stated Religious Belief,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1975): 176–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel Batson and W. Larry Ventis, The Religious Experience: A Social-Psychological Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Jerome Gellman, “Epistemic Peer Conflict and Religious Belief: A Reply to Basinger,” Faith and Philosophy 15 (1998): 229–35, see 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 8.
    Jerome Gellman, “In Defense of a Contented Religious Exclusivism,” Religious Studies 36 (2000): 401–17, see 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 9.
    John DePoe, “The Significance of Religious Disagreement,” in Taking Christian Moral Thought Seriously, ed. Jeremy Evans and Daniel Heimbach (Nashville Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2011), 48–76.Google Scholar
  13. 10.
    Alvin Plantinga, “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism,” in The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity, ed. Phillip Quinn and Kevin Meeker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 172–92, see 182.Google Scholar
  14. 11.
    Quentin Smith, “Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism: Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists,” Free Inquiry Magazine 18, no. 2 (2007), http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=smith_18_2.Google Scholar
  15. William Lane Craig, “The Caused Beginning of the Universe: A Response to Quentin Smith,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44, no. 4 (1993): 623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. William Lane Craig, “Reflections on ‘Uncaused Beginnings,’” Faith and Philosophy 27 (2010): 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 12.
    Mother Teresa, Come Be My Light: The Private Writings of the Saint of Calcutta (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 1–2.Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    Adam Elga, “Reflection and Disagreement,” Noûs 41 (2007): 478–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 14.
    James Kraft, “Religious Disagreement, Externalism, and the Epistemology of Disagreement: Listening to Our Grandmothers,” Religious Studies 43 (2007): 417–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 15.
    Philip Quinn, “On Religious Diversity and Tolerance,” Daedalus Winter (2005): 136–39.Google Scholar
  21. James Kraft, “Religious Tolerance Through Religious Diversity and Epistemic Humility,” Sophia 45 (2006).Google Scholar
  22. James Kraft and David Basinger, eds., Religious Tolerance Through Humility: Thinking with Philip Quinn (Berlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008).Google Scholar
  23. James Kraft, “Epistemic Humility in the Face of ‘Violent Religions,’” in Religious Tolerance Through Humility: Thinking with Philip Quinn, ed. James Kraft and David Basinger (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 65–74.Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    Patrick Rysiew, “The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions,” Noûs 35 (2001): 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patrick Rysiew, “Contesting Contextualism,” Grazer Philosophische Studien 69 (2005): 51–69.Google Scholar
  26. 17.
    James Kraft, “An Externalist, Contextualist Epistemology of Disagreement About Religion,” Ars Disputandi 9 (2009).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© James Kraft 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Kraft

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations