Volume 3, Issue 2 (2023)                   jpt 2023, 3(2): 89-99 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.58209/jpt.3.2.89

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abdollahi J, Taheri Khurramabadi S. The Epistemology of Disagreement; Epistemic Symmetry, Religious Experience and Alternative Explanation. jpt 2023; 3 (2) :89-99
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-66594-en.html
The Epistemology of Disagreement; Epistemic Symmetry, Religious Experience and Alternative Explanation
J. Abdollahi * 1, S.A. Taheri Khurramabadi1
1- Department of Philosophy of Science, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (463 Views)

According to conciliationist (reductionist) argumentations in epistemology of disagreement, disagreement with an epistemic peer, due to epistemic symmetry, reduces the confidence in the justification. But many religious believers are not willing to take the existence of epistemic peer disagreement. They think that they have different evidence for their religious beliefs and, hence, aren’t really epistemic peers with their opponents. They present private evidence, especially religious experiences, as a symmetry breaker. For this reason, some reductionists have argued to defend the reductionist position. In this article, we examine the responses of the reductionists to this challenge. In one of these answers, it is added an “alternative explanation or story” to the conditions of epistemic peer and claimed that the true epistemic peer under full disclosure should takes into account private evidences or experiences and gives a good story or explanation about why such experiences aren’t as efficacious as the religious person might think. We show that the “alternative explanation” presented by reductionists is not readily available in the most of the religious disagreements.
 

Keywords: Disagreement, Epistemic Peer, Epistemic Symmetry, Private Evidence, Religious Experience, Alternative Explanation
Full-Text [PDF 858 kb]   (628 Downloads)    
Article Type: Original Research | Subject: Philosophy of Religion (Analytical)
Received: 2023/01/6 | Accepted: 2023/05/4 | Published: 2023/06/18
* Corresponding Author Address: Department of Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Philosophy of Science, Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Street, Tehran, Iran. Postal Code: 1458889694 (jalaljalal13721372@gmail.com)
References
1. Abdollahi J (2022). An enquiry into peerhood in disagreements over the existence of God: The impossibility of achieving Peerhood. Journal of Recognition. 14(2):195-222. [Persian] [Link]
2. Aleston W (1991). Perceiving God: The epistemology of religious experience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [Link]
3. Bogardus T (2013). Disagreeing with the (Religious) Skeptic. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 74(1):5-17. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11153-012-9342-9]
4. Choo F (2021) The epistemic significance of religious disagreements: Cases of unconfirmed superiority disagreements. Topoi. 40:1139-1147. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11245-018-9599-4]
5. Christensen D (2007). Epistemology and disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review. 116:187-217. [Link] [DOI:10.1215/00318108-2006-035]
6. Christensen D (2011). Disagreement, question-begging, and epistemic self-criticism. Philosopher's Imprint. 11(6):1-22. [Link]
7. Conee E (2009). Peerage. Episteme. 6(3):313-323. [Link] [DOI:10.3366/E1742360009000732]
8. DePoe JM (2011). The significance of religious disagreement. in taking Christian moral thought seriously. Evans J, Heimbach D editor. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group. [Link]
9. Elga A (2007). Reflection and disagreement. Noûs. 41(3):478-502. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00656.x]
10. Feldman R (2007). Reasonable religious disagreements. Antony L editor. Philosophers without God: Meditations on Atheism and the secular life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 194-214. [Link]
11. Hojjati G (2019). Religious disagreement. Qom: Taha Book. [Persian] [Link]
12. Kelly T (2005). The epistemic significance of disagreement, Hawthorne J, Gendler T editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link]
13. Kelly T (2010). Peer Disagreement and higher-order evidence. Feldman R, Warfield T editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226078.003.0007]
14. Kraft J (2012). The epistemology of religious disagreement: A better understanding. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/9781137015105]
15. Kraft J (2021). Incommensurability and wide-ranging arguments for steadfastness in religious disagreements: Increasingly popular, but eventually complacent. Topoi. 40:1149-1159. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11245-019-09658-1]
16. Lackey J (2010). A justificationist view of disagreements epistemic significance. Haddock A, Millar A, Pritchard D editors. Social Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 145-154. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577477.003.0015]
17. Matheson J (2015). The epistemic significance of disagreement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/9781137400901]
18. Pittard J (2014). Conciliationism and religious disagreement. Bergmann M, Kain P editors. Challenges to moral and religious belief: Disagreement and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669776.003.0005]
19. Reining S (2016). Peerhood in deep religious disagreements. Religious Studies. 52(3):403-419. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/S0034412515000463]
20. Sosa E (2010). The epistemology of disagreement. Pritchard D, Haddock A, Millar A editors. Social Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577477.003.0014]
21. van Inwagen P (1996). It is wrong, everywhere, always, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. Jordan J, Howard- Snyder D editors. Faith, Freedom, and Rationality. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. []
22. Weatherson B (2013). Disagreements, philosophical and otherwise. Lackey J, Christensen D editors. The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 54. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199698370.003.0004]
23. Wedgwood R (2007). The nature of normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251315.001.0001]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.