Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Cornea and Inductive Evidence.Justin P. Mcbrayer - 2009 - Faith and Philosophy 26 (1):77-86.
    One of the primary tools in the theist’s defense against “noseeum” arguments from evil is an epistemic principle concerning the Conditions Of ReasoNableEpistemic Access (CORNEA) which places an important restriction on what counts as evidence. However, CORNEA is false because it places too strong acondition on what counts as inductive evidence. If CORNEA is true, we lack evidence for a great many of our inductive beliefs. This is because CORNEA amounts to a sensitivity constraint on evidence, and inductive evidence is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • On an Epistemic Cornerstone of Skeptical Theism: In Defense of CORNEA.Timothy Perrine - forthcoming - Sophia:1-23.
    Skeptical theism is a family of responses to arguments from evil. One important member of that family is Stephen Wykstra’s CORNEA-based criticism of William Rowe’s arguments from evil. A cornerstone of Wykstra’s approach is his CORNEA principle. However, a number of authors have criticized CORNEA on various grounds, including that it has odd results, it cannot do the work it was meant to, and it problematically conflicts with the so-called common sense epistemology. In this paper, I explicate and defend a (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Some Considerations Concerning CORNEA, Global Skepticism, and Trust.Kenneth Boyce - 2014 - In Trent Dougherty Justin McBrayer (ed.), Skeptical Theism: New Essays (Oxford University Press. pp. 103-114.
    Skeptical theists have been charged with being committed to global skepticism. I consider this objection as it applies to a common variety of skeptical theism based on an epistemological principle that Stephen Wykstra labeled “CORNEA.” I show how a recent reformulation of CORNEA (provided by Stephen Wykstra and Timothy Perrine) affords us with a formal apparatus that allows us to see just where this objection gets a grip on that view, as well as what is needed for an adequate response. (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Skeptical Theism.Justin P. McBrayer - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (7):611-623.
    Most a posteriori arguments against the existence of God take the following form: (1) If God exists, the world would not be like this (where 'this' picks out some feature of the world like the existence of evil, etc.) (2) But the world is like this . (3) Therefore, God does not exist. Skeptical theists are theists who are skeptical of our ability to make judgments of the sort expressed by premise (1). According to skeptical theism, if there were a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • Rowe's Evidential Arguments From Evil.Graham Oppy - 2013 - In Justin McBrayer & Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), A Companion to the Problem of Evil. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 49-66.
    This chapter discusses the two most prominent recent evidential arguments from evil, due, respectively, to William Rowe and Paul Draper. I argue that neither of these evidential arguments from evil is successful, i.e. such that it ought to persuade anyone who believes in God to give up that belief. In my view, theists can rationally maintain that each of these evidential arguments from evil contains at least one false premise.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation