Understanding an epistemic parity situation eps

This is simply an empirical claim about psychological states and behaviors Alston—; Plantinga Such grounded beliefs are warranted provided they can be defended against known objections. Ernest Sosa talks of a gulf between the private and public domain Sosa Perhaps the clearest exponent of this position is the comparatively recent Clifford whose use of moral vocabulary conveys well the overriding character of the reasons epistemology is said to provide.

Might it not, though, at least be justifiable for a public school educator to encourage students to respect the right of adherents to other religions to retain their current religious beliefs? Most maintain that the exclusivist has at least the right to assess her beliefs in the face of religious diversity.

And these individuals will receive the divine grace necessary to achieve salvation from Hell Mutahhari, ; Legenhausen, Cambridge University Press, 3— Hick has never denied that the major world religions—Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam—make conflicting truth claims.

Richard Feldman criticizes the relativist solution to the problem, namely that there is not always a unique reasonable doxastic attitude to a given proposition in a given epistemic situation. What is of interest is the kind of argument put forward.

The Epistemology of Religion

For instance, significant intra-Christian debate has centered historically on the eternal fate of young children who die.

Some, though, see this sort of ethical standard for acceptable salvific perspectives to be as arbitrary as the standard for acceptable paths to salvation set forth by exclusivists or inclusivists Meeker5. Although these have some implications for the epistemology of religion they are primarily topics in general epistemology.

Jennifer Lackey notes, for instance, that each person in an epistemic dispute has greater access to the reliability of her own belief-forming faculties than do her epistemic competitors Lackey, Accordingly, since it seems reasonable to believe that widespread acceptance of the validity of diverse religious perspectives and increased focus on the commonalities in diverse religions might well result in more peaceful, mutually beneficial interaction among followers of diverse religions, the question of whether public school teachers can justifiably attempt to bring it about that students affirm the beliefs in question appears worthy of exploration.

Oxford University Press, — Stress on the autonomy thesis brings Wittgensteinian fideism close to the fideism of many religious conservatives, but stress on the incommensurability thesis brings it close to the extreme liberal position of Braithwaitenamely that religion is about attitudes not facts, which would, of course, be rejected by religious conservatives.

Many natural theologians have, however, abandoned the search for demonstrative arguments, appealing instead to ones which are probable, either in the sense of having weight but being inconclusive or in the sense of having a mathematical probability assigned to them. It still remains true, he grants, that the reality of religious diversity diminishes justification.

And to attempt to do this in a public school setting will be seen by many as violating the prohibition against both restricting the free exercise of religion and promoting a given religion Basinger, But what if we assume that while the consideration of criteria such as self-consistency and comprehensiveness can rule out certain options, there exists no set of criteria that will allow us to resolve most religious epistemic disputes either between or within religious perspectives in a neutral, nonquestion-begging fashion Peterson et al.

So we must conclude, argues Himma, that it would not be morally just for the Christian God to deny salvation to devout people of other faiths. Thus Mavrodes has argued that any belief due to a genuine revelation is warranted, and has discussed several modes of revelation Mavrodes It also ignores disputes between coherence theorists and foundationalists and disputes over whether belief is voluntary.

In fact, at one point he goes even further. For example, within Christianity, believers differ significantly on the nature of God. Therefore, since it cannot be demonstrated that Christian belief of this sort is very likely false, the Christian remains justified in maintaining that the proponents of other religious perspectives are not actually on equal epistemic footing.

Is it justifiable for the public school educator to go even further than the dissemination of accurate information and the attempted engendering of empathetic understanding? Should not both disputants suspend judgement?

But they deny that there is any necessary epistemic connection between acknowledged diversity and a weakening of justified personal commitment. If Newman is right then evidentialism is slightly wrong.

This is not to say, of course, it is acknowledged, that all the details of all the salvific paths are actually true since some of the relevant claims are inconsistent.

Religious Diversity (Pluralism)

Meditations on Atheism and the Secular LifeOxford: Cambridge University Press, — There is a strong Christian tradition that holds that God is under no obligation to treat any individual in what we would consider a just, fair fashion.

David Silver comes to a similar conclusion:Multi-agency working and its implications for practice: Contents Contents 2 understanding of other agencies, and improved relationships and communication between agencies. Negative impacts on professionals (e.g.

by ensuring parity amongst partners, valuing diversity); securing. Moral Disagreement and Audi's Account of Moral Intuitionism Dustin Michael Sigsbee Moral Disagreement and Audi’s Account of Moral Intuitionism By Dustin Michael relevant evidence equally conscientiously.”lx This is generally called epistemic parity.

In situations where we have epistemic parity and disagreement persists despite. Philip Quinn argues, for instance, that acknowledged epistemic parity necessarily has a negative (epistemically humbling) impact on the level of justification for any religious belief system.

Such parity does not necessarily reduce justification below a level sufficient for rational acceptability. An Externalist, Contextualist Epistemology of Disagreement about Religion Abstract way of understanding these epistemic conditions is reliabilism, which says the An externalist, contextualist epistemology of disagreement about religion.

epistemic parity as a key notion that is applicable to the relationship between religious and non-religious citizens within the boundaries of Audi’s conceptual framework. Abstract In Moral Perception Robert Audi advocates for an intuitionist account of moral perception in which a moral agent of the proper disposition can use emotion and intuition as a means of supporting or justifying knowledge claims .

Understanding an epistemic parity situation eps
Rated 4/5 based on 81 review