The Epistemic Significance of Religious Disagreements: Cases of Unconfirmed Superiority Disagreements

Topoi:1-9 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Religious disagreements are widespread. Some philosophers have argued that religious disagreements call for religious skepticism, or a revision of one’s religious beliefs. In order to figure out the epistemic significance of religious disagreements, two questions need to be answered. First, what kind of disagreements are religious disagreements? Second, how should one respond to such disagreements? In this paper, I argue that many religious disagreements are cases of unconfirmed superiority disagreements, where parties have good reason to think they are not epistemic peers, yet they lack good reason to determine who is superior. Such disagreements have been left relatively unexplored. I then argue that in cases of unconfirmed superiority disagreements, disputants can remain relatively steadfast in holding to their beliefs. Hence, we can remain relatively steadfast in our beliefs in such cases of religious disagreements.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-11-14
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Moral Testimony as Higher Order Evidence.Lee, Marcus; Robson, Jon & Sinclair, Neil

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
189 ( #22,596 of 50,255 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
31 ( #20,048 of 50,255 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.