International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 63 (1/3):7 - 24 (2008)
|Abstract||'Evidentialism' is the conventional name (given mainly by its opponents) for the view that there is a moral duty to proportion one's beliefs to evidence, proof or other epistemic justifications for belief. This essay defends evidentialism against objections based on the alleged involuntariness of belief, on the claim that evidentialism assumes a doubtful epistemology, that epistemically unsupported beliefs can be beneficial, that there are significant classes of exceptions to the evidentialist principle, and other shabby evasions and alibis (as I take them to be) for disregarding the duty to believe according to the evidence. Evidentialism is also supported by arguments based on both self-regarding and other-regarding considerations|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Chris Tucker (2011). Phenomenal Conservatism and Evidentialism in Religious Epistemology. In Kelly James Clark & Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), Evidence and Religious Belief. Oxford University Press.
John Zeis (2006). Evidentialism and Faith. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 80:185-200.
Nathan Segars (2006). The Will and Evidence Toward Belief: A Critical Essay on Jonathan E. Adler's Belief's Own Ethics. Social Epistemology 20 (1):79 – 91.
Scott F. Aikin (2006). Modest Evidentialism. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (3):327-343.
T. Dougherty (ed.) (2011). Evidentialism and its Discontents. Oxford University Press.
Richard Feldman (2009). Evidentialism, Higher-Order Evidence, and Disagreement. Episteme 6 (3):294-312.
Chase B. Wrenn (2007). Why There Are No Epistemic Duties. Dialogue: The Canadian Philosophical Review 46 (01):115-136.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads98 ( #6,458 of 550,917 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,807 of 550,917 )
How can I increase my downloads?