David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Jonathan Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press. 97-125 (2012)
Most atheists are error theorists about theists; they claim that theists have genuine beliefs about the existence and nature of a divine being, but as a matter of fact no such divine being exists. Thus on their view the relevant theistic beliefs are mistaken. As error theorists, then, atheists need to arrive at some answer to the question of what practical course of action the atheist should adopt towards the theistic beliefs held by committed theists. The most natural answer and the one that we see being implemented by many prominent atheists today, can be stated roughly as follows: (1) Theistic Eliminativism: Atheists should marshal the best arguments at their disposal and present them to theists in the hopes that theists will come to appreciate that their religious beliefs are systemically erroneous. Furthermore, on coming to this realization, a theist should abandon not just his specific religious beliefs, but also more generally his religious practices and theistic framework for viewing the world, and adopt a secular point of view instead. One of the main goals of this paper is to show that, despite its popularity, eliminativism is not the only option for the atheist to adopt. In order to do so, I draw on recent work in meta-ethics on moral error theories, work which has helped to outline a number of alterative courses of action that someone might take towards a group which is said to have widespread erroneous beliefs.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bryan Frances (2008). Spirituality, Expertise, and Philosophers. In Jon Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Oxford. 44-81.
Daniel Howard-Snyder & John O'Leary-Hawthorne (1996). Are Beliefs About God Theoretical Beliefs? Reflections on Aquinas and Kant. Religious Studies 32 (2):233 - 258.
Laurence Carlin (2003). Can Any Divine Punishment Be Morally Justified? Philo 6 (2):280-298.
Erik J. Wielenberg (2010). Sceptical Theism and Divine Lies. Religious Studies 46 (4):509-523.
John Hawthorne & Daniel Howard-Snyder (1996). Are Beliefs About God Theoretical Beliefs? Reflections on Aquinas and Kant. Religious Studies 32 (2):233 - 258.
Quentin Smith (2002). Time Was Created by a Timeless Point: An Atheist Explanation of Spacetime. In Gregory E. Ganssle & David M. Woodruff (eds.), God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature. Oxford Up. 95-128.
Andrew Johnson (2013). An Apology for the “New Atheism”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (1):5-28.
Rob Lovering (2010). The Problem of the Theistic Evidentialist Philosophers. Philo 13 (2):185-200.
Blake T. Ostler (1997). Worshipworthiness and the Mormon Concept of God. Religious Studies 33 (3):315-326.
Kelly James Clark & Dani Rabinowitz (2011). Knowledge and the Objection to Religious Belief From Cognitive Science. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (1):67 - 81.
Richard Jonathan Sagar, The Cognitive Science of Religion/Atheism and its Impact on Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology.
Graham Oppy (1992). Is God Good by Definition? Religious Studies 28 (4):467 - 474.
Added to index2011-03-15
Total downloads37 ( #56,543 of 1,692,590 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #75,604 of 1,692,590 )
How can I increase my downloads?