tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post1381498755142951655..comments2023-05-20T07:46:10.187-07:00Comments on ex-apologist: A Neglected Version of the Great Pumpkin Objectionexapologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-43351592254193772602010-02-13T12:52:25.493-08:002010-02-13T12:52:25.493-08:00Whoops -- WCB, not WCP. Also, sorry for the sloppi...Whoops -- <i>WCB</i>, not <i>WCP</i>. Also, sorry for the sloppiness. Some day, I'm going to start editing <i>before</i> I hit the "post" button....exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-22951425842171269552010-02-13T12:50:21.474-08:002010-02-13T12:50:21.474-08:00Hi John D,
I actually had in mind a non-epistemic...Hi John D,<br /><br />I actually had in mind a non-epistemic notion of duty in the argument, so as to avoid Plantina's objections on this score in his previous reply to Michael Martin's Son of Great Pumpkin objection to his Reformed epistemology. Very roughly: in <i>WCP</i>, Plantinga agrees with Martin that non-belief can be consistent with epistemic duties, as well as with just about any internally accessible epistemic properties that one pleases. However, he argues that not every epistemic community can be <i>warranted</i> (where this is construed in externalist epsitemic terms). <br /><br />I'm using the notion of blamelessness here in the <i>moral</i> sense. The idea is that if PIM is a legitimate way to generate epistemic criteria of proper basicality, then it's epistemically possible for a non-theist epistemic community to be morally blameless in not believing in God. But this conflicts with the teaching of the apostle Paul in the epistle to the Romans, according to which no person is morally blameless for not believing in God, on the grounds that the existence and nature of God are not only seen in Creation, but <i>clearly</i> seen. <br /><br />Best,<br />EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-52053422897603119542010-02-13T05:12:24.462-08:002010-02-13T05:12:24.462-08:00Could you clarify the precise sense of epistemic d...Could you clarify the precise sense of epistemic duty that is being used here? I mean is that the believer cannot be criticised/blamed or is it that the believer cannot be wrong?<br /><br />I am just curious as to how much is actually established by claiming that God-belief is properly basic.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.com