Religious Studies 46 (1):97-107 (2010)
In this paper I evaluate Zamulinski’s recent attempt to rebut an argument to the conclusion that having any kind of religious faith violates a moral duty. I agree with Zamulinski that the argument is unsound, but I disagree on where it goes wrong. I criticize Zamulinski’s alternative construal of Christian faith as existential commitment to fundamental assumptions. It does not follow that we should accept the moral argument against religious faith, for at least two reasons. First, Zamulinski’s Cliffordian ethics of belief is defective in several regards. Second, the truth of doxastic involuntarism and the possibility of doxastic excuse conditions can be used to demonstrate that the argument is unconvincing
|Keywords||Ethics of Belief Christian Faith Evidentialism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Evidentialism and Faith: Believing in Order to Know.John Zeis - 2006 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 80:185-200.
Evidentialism and Faith.John Zeis - 2006 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 80:185-200.
On Christian Belief: A Defence of a Cognitive Conception of Religious Belief in a Christian Context.Andrew Collier - 2003 - Routledge.
Believing by Faith: An Essay in the Epistemology and Ethics of Religious Belief.John Bishop - 2007 - Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Faith as a First Principle in Charles McCoy's Theology and Ethics.Richard Gelwick - 1997 - Tradition and Discovery 24 (3):29-40.
Added to index2010-01-21
Total downloads109 ( #44,739 of 2,158,004 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #198,258 of 2,158,004 )
How can I increase my downloads?