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

    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…

    Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

    Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

    1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
    1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
    1.1.1 for ourselves
    1.1.2 for others
    1.1.3 for the world in which they live
    1.2 Valuable lives
    1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
    1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

    2. Kinds of evil
    2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
    2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

    3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…