Skip to main content

ANNOUNCEMENT: Purdue Conference on the Epistemology of Moral and Religious Belief

On September 6-8, 2012, Purdue University will host an interdisciplinary conference entitled “Challenges to Religious and Moral Belief: Disagreement and Evolution”.
The conference will focus on three main challenges to religious and moral beliefs:
  1. Widespread interpersonal disagreement among intellectual peers on religious and on moral topics provides reason to doubt these beliefs;
  2. Belief-source disagreement on moral issues between commonsense moral intuitions and religious belief sources raises doubts about both methods of belief formation;
  3. Evolutionary accounts of the origins of our religious and moral beliefs creates doubts about these beliefs by undermining our confidence in the reliability of their sources.
 Conference Participants:
  • Robert Audi                              University of Notre Dame (Philosophy)
  • Sarah Brosnan                         Georgia State University (Psychology)
  • Kelly James Clark                    Calvin College (Philosophy)
  • Stephen Davis                          Claremont McKenna College (Philosophy)
  • Kyla Ebels-Duggan                  Northwestern University (Philosophy)
  • William FitzPatrick                   University of Rochester (Philosophy)
  • John Greco                              Saint Louis University (Philosophy)
  • John Hare                                Yale University (Divinity School)
  • Kevin Hector                            University of Chicago (Divinity School)
  • Timothy Jackson                     Emory University (Candler School of Theology)
  • Jordan Kiper                            University of Connecticut (Anthropology)
  • Jennifer Lackey                       Northwestern University (Philosophy)
  • Dustin Locke                           Claremont McKenna College (Philosophy)
  • Charles Mathewes                  University of Virginia (Religious Studies)
  • Christian Miller                        Wake Forest University (Philosophy)
  • Mark Murphy                           Georgetown University (Philosophy)
  • John Pittard                             Yale University (Philosophy & Religious Studies)
  • Jeffrey Schloss                        Westmont College (Biology)
  • Walter Sinnott-Armstrong        Duke University (Philosophy)
  • Richard Sosis                           University of Connecticut (Anthropology)
  • Sharon Street                           New York University (Philosophy)
  • Ralph Wedgwood                     University of Southern California (Philosophy)
  • Erik Wielenberg                        DePauw University (Philosophy)
  • Michael Bergmann                  Purdue University (Philosophy)
  • Patrick Kain                             Purdue University (Philosophy)
For more information, including how to register, go to


Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…