Skip to main content

Forthcoming Papers to Look For: Lackey on Testimony and Disagreement


A while back, I noted some recent trends in epistemology that were bound to become -- and were quickly becoming -- hot topics in philosophy of religion (a project devoted to generating research on these topics and others has since been inaugurated, and is currently in full swing). Two of those topics were the the epistemology of disagreement and the epistemology of testimony. Jennifer Lackey is one of the most insightful in the field on both topics, and has been working on at least two papers in these areas:
  • “Taking Religious Disagreement Seriously,” forthcoming in Timothy O’Connor and Laura Frances Goins (eds.), Religious Faith and Intellectual Virtue (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  • “Religious Belief and the Epistemology of Testimony", to be presented at the 2013 Baylor-Georgetown-Notre Dame Philosophy of Religion Conference
Keep an eye out for these papers and others from Lackey, as they are likely to be important contributions to these topics. 





    Comments

    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

    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 uia.no.

    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…