Religious disagreements and epistemic rationality

Abstract
Richard Feldman has argued that in cases of religious disagreement between epistemic peers who have shared all relevant evidence, epistemic rationality requires suspense of judgment. I argue that Feldman’s postulation of completely shared evidence is unrealistic for the kinds of disputes he is considering, since different starting points will typically produce different assessments of what the evidence is and how it should be weighed. Feldman argues that there cannot be equally reasonable starting points, but his extension of the postulate of completely shared evidence to evidence for starting points involves an illicit assimilation of ordinary cases of evidence assessment to cases in which substantial agreement about background assumptions is lacking. I also clarify why even if Feldman were correct about what epistemic norms require, his conclusion would not show that we should actually suspend judgment about religious or anti-religious truth claims
Keywords Feldman  Religious disagreements  Epistemic rationality  Suspension of judgment  Evidentialism  Epistemic peers  Shared evidence  agnosticism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11153-012-9366-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 33,208
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.Richard Rorty - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.David Christensen - 2007 - Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
Reflection and Disagreement.Adam Elga - 2006 - Noûs 41 (3):478–502.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Pluralism and Justified Religious Belief.David Basinger - 1996 - Faith and Philosophy 13 (2):260-265.
Evidence and Normativity: Reply to Leite.Thomas Kelly - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2):465–474.
Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique.Thomas Kelly - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3):612–640.
In Defence of a Contented Religious Exclusivism.Jerome Gellman - 2000 - Religious Studies 36 (4):401-417.
Are Disagreements Honest.Tyler Cowen & Robin Hanson - forthcoming - Journal of Economic Methodology.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-08-10

Total downloads
102 ( #58,125 of 2,242,631 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #156,357 of 2,242,631 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature