DOCSLIB.ORG

The Epistemology of Disagreement: Hume, Kant, and the Current Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Epistemology of Disagreement: Hume, Kant, and the Current Debate Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (2009 -) Projects The Epistemology of Disagreement: Hume, Kant, and the Current Debate Robert Kyle Whitaker Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Whitaker, Robert Kyle, "The Epistemology of Disagreement: Hume, Kant, and the Current Debate" (2020). Dissertations (2009 -). 903. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/903 THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF DISAGREEMENT: HUME, KANT, AND THE CURRENT DEBATE by Robert Kyle Whitaker A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2020 ABSTRACT THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF DISAGREEMENT: HUME, KANT, AND THE CURRENT DEBATE Robert Kyle Whitaker Marquette University, 2020 The epistemological issue of disagreement comprises several related problems which arise in relation to disagreeing with another person. The central questions at issue are: (1) Can a body of evidence confer rationality on opposed propositions? (2) What is the relevance of unshareable evidence to disagreement? (3) What are one’s epistemic responsibilities in the context of disagreement? I consider several arguments from the recent disagreement literature which suggest that reasonable disagreements between people who have shared their evidence and are epistemic peers--i.e., they are equally informed about the disputed issue, and are roughly equal with respect to intelligence, thoughtfulness, carefulness, alertness, and so on--are not possible. I also consider several arguments which suggest that one may rationally persist in one’s views in spite of peer disagreement. In the course of considering these arguments, I discuss the role of “evidential seemings,” seemings of the form “It seems to one that evidence E supports proposition p”; their analogous relationship to perceptual seemings; and how such seemings might be outweighed by higher-order evidence provided by peer disagreement. I propose that the most difficult and interesting aspect of the peer disagreement problem is prolonged disagreement with a recognized epistemic peer, which may undermine one’s evidential seemings in the form of Parity: in the context of peer disagreement, both parties may be aware that things would seem just the same to them as they do if in fact the other party were correct and they were mistaken. This presents a localized skeptical problem that affects what one should believe in the context of such a disagreement, because prolonged peer disagreement puts one’s own evidential seemings into conflict. I propose and discuss three possible solutions to the Parity Problem, one inspired by David Hume, and two inspired by Immanuel Kant: (1) Practical considerations stemming from the underdetermination of one’s views by the available evidence as well as one’s larger epistemic goals can justify maintaining one’s view. Alternatively, judgments that someone else is an epistemic peer may be classified as either (2) empty regulative theoretical judgments (a Kantian category), or (3) non-theoretic judgments (analogous to judgments about taste). In either case, rational disagreement under Parity is possible. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Robert Kyle Whitaker I would like to thank my dissertation director, Prof. Michael Wreen, for his patient guidance throughout this project. My ability to write and assess arguments is in large part due to him, as he was my professor for graduate logic and several courses on analytic philosophy. Any argumentative errors that may remain in this work are likely due to my failing to consider his advice more carefully. I also want to thank Dr. Noel Adams and Dr. Stanley Harrison for serving on my dissertation committee, and for the positive influence--both professional and personal--they’ve had on me during my graduate studies. Dr. Adams introduced me to Søren Kierkegaard, and Dr. Harrison to C.S. Peirce, two philosophers from whom I will continue to learn for the rest of my life. I am indebted to Drs. Adams and Harrison for these introductions, and for representing those great philosophers so well. I would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Paul Moser for serving as outside reader on this project. I have benefitted greatly from his work in both epistemology and philosophy of religion, as well as from the graduate seminar on Kierkegaard that I was fortunate to take with him. In many ways he serves as a model for me of Christian philosophy done well: with rigor, inclusion, and guided by a genuine faith. I am grateful for this example. There are many others who were not engaged directly in this project, but whose influence has in one way or another contributed to its completion. Thanks are due to all of those who have taught me to think clearly, and shown me by example the difference that philosophy can make with respect to forming a good character. These people include Dr. Cynthia Gayman, Dr. Rory Goggins, Dr. Theresa Tobin, Dr. Nancy Snow, Dr. Bronwyn Finnigan, and many others. In addition, I must thank my fellow Marquette graduate students, whose friendships have sustained me through this process, especially Nick Oschman, Brett Yardley, and Shaun Blanchard. I have learned as much from them about how to be a scholar as anyone, and they’ve all provided much needed levity and kindness. Finally, to my family. My parents, George and Linda Whitaker, first told me that I was capable, and guided me to many of the ideas that still occupy my attention. They gave support of every kind at every stage of my studies, and never once was any condition attached. And to my wife, Emily, the biggest thanks of all. Her contributions are too many and too varied to name. Completing a dissertation while remaining mentally healthy is a difficult task, and my accomplishment of it is due almost solely to her. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: CAN EVIDENCE SUPPORT OPPOSED PROPOSITIONS? ....... 10 1.1: Peter van Inwagen on Evidence and Exclusivity ....................................... 10 1.2: Richard Feldman’s Uniqueness Thesis ...................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2: PRIVATE EVIDENCE ................................................................... 33 2.1: Van Inwagen on the Use of Private Evidence ............................................ 33 2.2: Feldman on the Relevance of Private Evidence ......................................... 40 2.3: Christensen on the Symmetry of Private Evidence .................................... 46 CHAPTER 3: THE PERCEPTUAL ANALOGY .................................................. 54 3.1: Perceptual Seeming in the Disagreement Debate ...................................... 54 3.2: Implications of the Analogy ....................................................................... 62 CHAPTER 4: THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE AND DEFEAT OF SEEMINGS .... 69 4.1: Rosen on the Contingency of Evidential Seemings ................................... 69 4.2: The Epistemic Parity of Seemings ............................................................. 81 CHAPTER 5: THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF DISAGREEMENT ITSELF ..... 95 5.1: Idealization, Independence, and Bootstrapping ......................................... 95 5.2: Christensen on Symmetry between Apparent Peers ................................ 103 CHAPTER 6: HIGHER-ORDER EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY .................. 110 6.1: The Meta-Evidence Principle ................................................................... 110 6.2: Disagreement and Testimony ................................................................... 122 iii 6.3: The Problem of Possible Rational Disagreement ..................................... 130 CHAPTER 7: PEERHOOD, CONFORMISM, AND NONCONFORMISM ..... 140 7.1: Defining Peerhood .................................................................................... 140 7.2: Responding to Parity: Conformism and Nonconformism ........................ 149 CHAPTER 8: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS I: HUME’S CONTRIBUTION ........ 161 8.1: A Humean Approach to Disagreement .................................................... 162 8.2: Moffett’s Millian Solution to Peer Disagreement .................................... 172 8.3: Hume Again ............................................................................................. 180 CHAPTER 9: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS II: KANT’S CONTRIBUTION ....... 187 9.1: Kant’s Categories of Judgments and Disagreement ................................. 187 9.2: Conclusion ................................................................................................ 196 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 200 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 206 1 Introduction The literature on the epistemology of disagreement contains several questions that must be clearly distinguished. A survey of this literature yields many similar but distinct emphases with respect to what the debate over rational disagreement is fundamentally about. If we ask, “What is the guiding question in this debate?” the answer is: There is no single guiding
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research
    The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research Lindsay Mack Abstract This article traces the underlying theoretical framework of educational research. It outlines the definitions of epistemology, ontology and paradigm and the origins, main tenets, and key thinkers of the 3 paradigms; positivist, interpetivist and critical. By closely analyzing each paradigm, the literature review focuses on the ontological and epistemological assumptions of each paradigm. Finally the author analyzes not only the paradigm’s weakness but also the author’s own construct of reality and knowledge which align with the critical paradigm. Key terms: Paradigm, Ontology, Epistemology, Positivism, Interpretivism The English Language Teaching (ELT) field has moved from an ad hoc field with amateurish research to a much more serious enterprise of professionalism. More teachers are conducting research to not only inform their teaching in the classroom but also to bridge the gap between the external researcher dictating policy and the teacher negotiating that policy with the practical demands of their classroom. I was a layperson, not an educational researcher. Determined to emancipate myself from my layperson identity, I began to analyze the different philosophical underpinnings of each paradigm, reading about the great thinkers’ theories and the evolution of social science research. Through this process I began to examine how I view the world, thus realizing my own construction of knowledge and social reality, which is actually quite loose and chaotic. Most importantly, I realized that I identify most with the critical paradigm assumptions and that my future desired role as an educational researcher is to affect change and challenge dominant social and political discourses in ELT.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning
    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning 1. Empiricism and the Question of Empirical Reasons Empiricism may be defined as the view there is no a priori justification for any synthetic claim. Critics object that empiricism cannot account for all the kinds of knowledge we seem to possess, such as moral knowledge, metaphysical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and modal knowledge.1 In some cases, empiricists try to account for these types of knowledge; in other cases, they shrug off the objections, happily concluding, for example, that there is no moral knowledge, or that there is no metaphysical knowledge.2 But empiricism cannot shrug off just any type of knowledge; to be minimally plausible, empiricism must, for example, at least be able to account for paradigm instances of empirical knowledge, including especially scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be divided into three categories: (a) knowledge by direct observation; (b) knowledge that is deductively inferred from observations; and (c) knowledge that is non-deductively inferred from observations, including knowledge arrived at by induction and inference to the best explanation. Category (c) includes all scientific knowledge. This category is of particular import to empiricists, many of whom take scientific knowledge as a sort of paradigm for knowledge in general; indeed, this forms a central source of motivation for empiricism.3 Thus, if there is any kind of knowledge that empiricists need to be able to account for, it is knowledge of type (c). I use the term “empirical reasoning” to refer to the reasoning involved in acquiring this type of knowledge – that is, to any instance of reasoning in which (i) the premises are justified directly by observation, (ii) the reasoning is non- deductive, and (iii) the reasoning provides adequate justification for the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 086 604 SO 006 822 AUTHOR Norris, Jack A., Jr. TITLE Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla. PUB DATE 72 NOTE 20p.; Authorized Course of Instruction for the Quinmester Program EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Course Objectives; Curriculum Guides; Grade 10; Grade 11; Grade 12; *Language Arts; Learnin4 Activities; *Logic; Non Western Civilization; *Philosophy; Resource Guides; Secondary Grades; *Social Studies; *Social Studies Units; Western Civilization IDENTIFIERS *Quinmester Program ABSTRACT Western and non - western philosophers and their ideas are introduced to 10th through 12th grade students in this general social studies Quinmester course designed to be used as a preparation for in-depth study of the various schools of philosophical thought. By acquainting students with the questions and categories of philosophy, a point of departure for further study is developed. Through suggested learning activities the meaning of philosopky is defined. The Socratic, deductive, inductive, intuitive and eclectic approaches to philosophical thought are examined, as are three general areas of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology,and axiology. Logical reasoning is applied to major philosophical questions. This course is arranged, as are other quinmester courses, with sections on broad goals, course content, activities, and materials. A related document is ED 071 937.(KSM) FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY U S DEPARTMENT EDUCATION OF HEALTH. NAT10N41
    [Show full text]
  • Reformed Epistemology
    Reformed Epistemology Matthew Jacoby Bertrand Russell, the famous twentieth century philosopher, sceptic, and atheist, was once asked what he would do if he died and it turned out that God did exist after all. What would he say to God who would now call him to account for not believing? His answer was simple: "not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!" Certainly many people feel the same way. They feel that they could not be held accountable for believing something that is not perceptually obvious or logically necessary. How can God hide so irretrievably from the senses of mankind and then hold us accountable for not believing in his existence? Another famous atheist, W. K. Clifford, went further than this. Working on a Kantian model for rationality and ethics Clifford insisted that, in the absence of evidence, belief in the existence of God is not only irrational but also immoral. The Christian is confronted here by a serious challenge. The challenge is to show that belief in God is rational and specifically by producing evidence. Now in most cases Christians will respond to this by immediately summoning up in their minds all the available evidence for God's existence that they feel is at least persuasive enough to give them a few moments of credibility. And this is very often how Christians deal with the situation precisely because they feel that almost everything in life is proof that God exists. But the Christian quickly realises that what is so evident to him or her is not at all obvious to the objector.
    [Show full text]
  • HRP Vol 18 Text Vf
    EPISTEMOLOGY Identity,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 41 Le temps retrouvéA la recherche du temps perdu, Le temps retrouvé 43 Untimely Meditations, By Duncan Pritchard 44 45 Essays and Lectures as best I can the actual methodology employed by analytical 46 view there has been a tendency in the recent debate about the 47 He does not, of course, give reason the same place in our nature as Kant does (he replaces M The Gay Science is that analytical philosophers do when they do philosophy, and this is especially Le temps retrouvé, Le Côté de Guermantes particular, I claim that once we understand the methodology actually employed 51 To the Lighthouse by analytical epistemologists properly then we will see that it is not as exposed 1 A Sketch of the Past, 53 A Sketch of the Past 54 Proust holds that one is for the most part completely closed down by habit: “habit hides almost the whole universe from us throughout our lives,” Le temps retrouvé, 55 56 Collected Tales, Sketches, Speeches – As we will see below, I think this way of describing the methodology of 57 Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler’s Ninth Sympthony (London: Routledge, the philosophical data provided by intuition, I still think we need to recognise The Myth Makers, Much of the focus when it comes to the role of intuition in epistemology is on our intuitive responses to cases, where we are asked to form an intuitive extensional intuitions Duncan Pritchard joined the University of Edinburgh’s philosophy department in 2007 as the new Chair in Epistemology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence of Intent
    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 4 1999 The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific videnceE of Intent Erica Beecher-Monas Edgar Garcia-Rill Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Evidence Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Erica Beecher-Monas and Edgar Garcia-Rill, The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific videnceE of Intent, 1 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 243 (1999). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol1/iss2/4 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LAW AND THE BRAIN: JUDGING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF INTENT Erica Beecher-Monas* and Edgar Garcia-Rill, Ph.D.** INTRODUCTION As evidentiary gatekeepers, judges must be ready to evaluate expert testimony about science and the brain. A wide variety of cases present issues of mental state, many doubtless with battling experts seeking to testify on these issues. This poses a dilemma for nonspecialist judges. How is a nonscientist to judge scientific evidence? How can a nonscientist decide if testimony about mental state meets the criteria of good science? This essay offers a general overview of the issue of evaluating scientific evidence and is aimed at exploring the issues involved, but not attempting easy answers. Of necessity, this requires thinking about how science works.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation with Duncan Pritchard
    APhEx 15, 2017 (ed. Vera Tripodi) Redattore: Federica Berdini N° 15 GENNAIO 2017 I NTERVISTE Conversation with Duncan Pritchard by Michel Croce Duncan Pritchard is Chair in Epistemology at the University of Edinburgh and Director of Edinburgh’s Eidyn research centre. He is certainly one of the most influential contemporary epistemologists. His main research inter- ests include topics such as the problem of skepticism, the problem of the na- ture and value of knowledge, extended knowledge, and social epistemology. He is author and co-author of several books, editor of the International Journal for the Study of Skepticism and Oxford Bibliographies: Philosophy, and principal investigator of several international research projects hosted at Eidyn. His latest book, Epistemic Angst: Radical Skepticism and the Groundlessness of Our Believing, published by Princeton University Press in 2015, provides a novel strategy to address the skeptical challenge. In this Periodico On-line / ISSN 2036-9972 Michel Croce – Conversation with Duncan Pritchard broad interview, Pritchard reveals the theoretical origin of his latest work and illustrates the connections between the main topics he explored in his massive research activity. He also offers interesting anecdotes concerning his personal experience as an academic and insightful advices to those who are willing to pursue a philosophy curriculum. 1. Dear Duncan, thank you very much for accepting my invitation to tell the readers of APhEx something about your work. We’ll have time to discuss in detail various aspects of your philosophy, but let me start with a brief bio- graphical question about your interest in philosophy and in becoming an academic.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Address
    Empowering Philosophy Christia Mercer COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Presidential Address delivered at the one hundred sixteenth Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association in Philadelphia, PA, on January 10, 2020. The main goal of my presidential address in January 2020 was to show that philosophy’s past offers a means to empower its present. I hoped to encourage colleagues to make the philosophy we teach and practice more inclusive (both textually and topically) and to adopt a more public- facing engagement with our discipline. As I add these introductory remarks to my January lecture, it is June 2020 and the need to empower philosophy has never seemed more urgent. We’ve witnessed both the tragic death of George Floyd and the popular uprising of a diverse group of Americans in response to the ongoing violence against Black lives. Many white Americans—and many philosophers—have begun to realize that their inattentiveness to matters of diversity and inclusivity must now be seen as more than mere negligence. Recent demonstrations frequently contain signs that make the point succinctly: “Silence is violence.” A central claim of my January lecture was that philosophy’s status quo is no longer tenable. Even before the pandemic slashed university budgets and staff, our employers were cutting philosophy programs, enrollments were shrinking, and jobs were increasingly hard to find. Despite energetic attempts on the part of many of our colleagues to promote a more inclusive approach to our research and teaching, the depressing truth remains:
    [Show full text]
  • Should You Believe What You Hear?
    Should You Believe What You Hear? Dr. Allan Hazlett Much of what we think about the world we believe on the basis of what other people say. But is this trust in other people's testimony justified? This week, we’ll investigate how this question was addressed by two great philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, David Hume (1711 - 1776) and Thomas Reid (1710 - 1796). Hume and Reid's dispute about testimony represents a clash between two worldviews that would continue to clash for centuries: a skeptical and often secular worldview, eager to question everything (represented by Hume), and conservative and often religious worldview, keen to defend common sense (represented by Reid). Part One - Introduction: Hume on Testimony and Miracles Testimony and believing what others tell you. Enlightenment 1700-1800 Intellectual autonomy Hume – Essays on Miracles “there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men” What is distinctive of "naturalistic" approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.) No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature. No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies. Never believe a miracle based upon testimony Assumption of testimony: You have to have evidence that the person is speaking is likely to be right. Evidentialism – “A wise man…proportions his belief to the evidence.” Which of the following captures Hume's assumption about basing beliefs on testimony? To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology
    This is a repository copy of A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94260/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Byerly, T.R. (2014) A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology. Logos and Episteme : an International Journal of Epistemology, V (4). pp. 399-424. ISSN 2069-3052 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ A Dispositional Internalist Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology This paper articulates and defends a novel version of internalist evidentialism which employs dispositions to account for the relation of evidential support. In section one, I explain internalist evidentialist views generally, highlighting the way in which the relation of evidential support stands at the heart of these views. I then discuss two leading ways in which evidential support has been understood by evidentialists, and argue that an account of support which employs what I call epistemic dispositions remedies difficulties arguably faced by these two leading accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion Michael J
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-85369-9 - An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion Michael J. Murray and Michael C. Rea Index More information Index Adams, Robert M., 239, 240–2, 243, 245, Christology 248, 249 three-part, 84 afterlife, see immortality two-part, 83–4 Alston, William, 108, 109 see also Incarnation Anselm, of Canterbury St., 8, 12–13 Commissurotomy, see Trinity, and and perfect-being theology, 8 commissurotomy Ontological Argument, 124–35 compatibilism, 54, 61 Apollinarianism, 81 Constitution Trinitarianism, see Trinity, Aquinas, Thomas St., 30, 61, 100, statue–lump analogy 238, 263 Cosmological Argument, 135–46 Arianism, 81 Kalam version, 143–6 Aristotle, 73 counterfactual, 53 aseity, see self-existence of freedom, 59, 60–1 Assumption, 84 power, 53–4 atemporality, 40; see also eternity see also Molinism; Ockhamism Athanasian Creed, 66 Craig, William Lane, 143, 145 atheism creation, 22–3, 26–33 arguments for, see God, arguments Cryptomnesia, 277 against the existence of evolutionary argument against, see Davis, Stephen, 76 Evolution Dawkins, Richard, 97, 221 Augustine, St., 61, 70 Dembski, William, 215–16 Descartes, Rene´, 17, 125–6, 263 basic belief, 108 Design Arguments, 146–55 Basil, St., 69 argument from analogy, 147–8 Bayle, Pierre, 252 inference to the best explanation Behe, Michael, 216–20 argument, 148–9 Bergmann, Michael, 110 fine-tuning argument, Boethius, 40, 41 150–5 Brower, Jeffrey, 66, 67 determinism, 54 divine command ethics, see ethics; Calvin, John, 61 divine commands Calvinism, see Providence Docetism, 81 Chalcedonian Creed, 80 Draper, Paul, 178–80 287 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-85369-9 - An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion Michael J.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Humility, Arguments from Evil, and Moral Skepticism
    Jonathan L. Kvanvig c02.tex V1 - June 4, 2009 11:16am Page 17 2 Epistemic Humility, Arguments from Evil, and Moral Skepticism Daniel Howard-Snyder Many arguments from evil at least tacitly rely on something like the following line of thought: The Inference. On sustained reflection, we don’t see how any reason we know of would justify God in permitting all the evil in the world; ¹ FN:1 therefore, there is no reason that would justify God. The conclusion is frequently more nuanced: ‘‘it is very likely that there is no such reason’’ or ‘‘more likely than not’’ or ‘‘more likely than it otherwise would be’’. Some critics reject the premise: we do see how some reason would justify God. These are the theodicists. Others accept the premise but reject the conclusion: the evidence or non-evidential warrant for God’s existence is much better than the evidence for no justifying reason. These are the natural theologians and Reformed epistemologists. Some critics, however, insist that even if the premise is true and even if there isn’t better evidence or non-evidential warrant for God’s existence, we should For comments on previous drafts, I thank Michael Almeida, Nick Beckstead, Michael Bergmann, Rebecca Copenhaver, Trent Dougherty, Robert Epperson, Frances Howard- Snyder, Hud Hudson, Shieva Kleinschmidt, Christian Lee, Wes Morriston, Michael Murray, Robert Pasnau, Alexander Pruss, Michael Rea, John Schellenberg, Michael Tooley, Ryan Wasserman, Dennis Whitcomb, and three anonymous referees. ¹ Three notes in one. (1) The theistic God is the God in question here. At a minimum, this God has enough power and knowledge to prevent evil, and is unsurpassable in moral goodness.
    [Show full text]