Reasonable Doubts About Reasonable Nonbelief

Henry, Douglas V.

doi:10.5840/faithphil200825327

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The investigation into A Gay Girl in Damascus provides illustration of the suspicion cast on marginalized groups. As Liz Henry (one of the investigators) reports, some of the initial suspicions about the blog's authenticity cited doubts that there could be an out lesbian in Damascus (Henry 2011 a ). In light of persistent attempts to render the LGBT community in the Middle East invisible by denying their existence, 18 this reason for doubting Amina's blog is troubling.…”

Section: Accountability Mechanism 2: Investigative Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability

Frost‐Arnold¹

2013

Episteme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since anonymous agents can spread misinformation with impunity, many people advocate for greater accountability for internet speech. This paper provides a veritistic argument that accountability mechanisms can cause significant epistemic problems for internet encyclopedias and social media communities. I show that accountability mechanisms can undermine both the dissemination of true beliefs and the detection of error. Drawing on social psychology and behavioral economics, I suggest alternative mechanisms for increasing the trustworthiness of internet communication.

show abstract

Section: Accountability Mechanism 2: Investigative Accountabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability

Frost‐Arnold¹

2013

Episteme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence one way of objecting to premise (3) is to show that non-belief in God is the result of sin and thus those who are non-believers are at fault in some way for their unbelief. This sort of response can be traced at least as far back as Calvin in the Western tradition and has been endorsed in one form or another by a number of contemporary philosophers (Talbot (1989); Morris (1992), 96; Schellenberg (1993), 74–82; Murray (1993), 35; Plantinga (2000); Henry (2008), 279). As an example of this move, consider Plantinga (2000):The most serious noetic effects of sin have to do with our knowledge of God.…”

Section: Objections To Premise (3)mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…And once we reflect on the differences between God and ourselves, this provides a defeater for whatever prima facie justification our beliefs about what God would do initially had. Consider Henry (2008):We must allow, then, that accounts of divine love are subject to the limits and frailties of our own view from below. Honestly appraising the humble position we occupy reminds us that divine love could be different from what we imagine.…”

Section: Going Forward: the Sceptical Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Scepticism about the argument from divine hiddenness

McBrayer

Swenson

2011

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some philosophers have argued that the paucity of evidence for theism – along with basic assumptions about God's nature – is ipso facto evidence for atheism. The resulting argument has come to be known as the argument from divine hiddenness. Theists have challenged both the major and minor premises of the argument by offering defences. However, all of the major, contemporary defences are failures. What unites these failures is instructive: each is implausible given other commitments shared by everyone in the debate or by theists in particular. Only challenges which are plausible given both common sense and other theistic commitments will undermine the argument from divine hiddenness. Given that such defences universally fail, the best hope for a successful challenge to the argument comes from more general sceptical responses. This sort of response is briefly sketched and defended against four independent objections.

show abstract

“…4.See Aijaz & Weidler (2007), Azadegan (2013a; 2013b; forthcoming), Cullison (2010), Cuneo (2013), Dumsday (2010a; 2010b; 2012a; 2012b; 2013), Evans (2006; 2010), Henry (2001; 2008), Howard-Snyder (1996), King (2008; 2013), Marsh (2008), McBrayer & Swenson (2012), McCreary (2010), McKim (2001), Moser (2008), Murray (2002), Oakes (2008), O'Connell (2013), Poston & Dougherty (2007), Rea (2009), Swinburne (1998; 2004), van Inwagen (2002; 2006), Tucker (2008), and Weidler & Aijaz (2013). …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divine hiddenness and special revelation

Dumsday¹

2014

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Next to the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness is the most prominent single argument for atheism in the current literature. Most advocates of the problem target what can be termed ‘generic theism’, theism abstracted from any particular religious tradition. Correspondingly most replies are made from the perspective of generic theism. While understandable, this common structure to the dialectic can obscure possible replies centred on the doctrinal resources of particular religions. I argue here that Christian soteriology provides a good reason why God might refrain from making His existence rationally indubitable to all.

show abstract

Reasonable Doubts About Reasonable Nonbelief

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability

Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability

Scepticism about the argument from divine hiddenness

Divine hiddenness and special revelation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About