Skeptical Theism and Moral Skepticism
نویسنده
چکیده
Skeptical theists purport to undermine evidential arguments from evil by appealing to the fact that our knowledge of goods, evils, and their interconnections is signi cantly limited. Michael J. Almeida and Graham Oppy have recently argued that skeptical theism is unacceptable because it results in a form of moral skepticism which rejects inferences that play an important role in our ordinary moral reasoning. In this reply to Almeida and Oppy's argument we offer some reasons for thinking that skeptical theism need not lead to any such objectionable form of moral skepticism.
منابع مشابه
A Refutation of Skeptical Theism
A Refutation of Skeptical Theism David Kyle Johnson The evidential problem of evil suggests that our awareness of the existence of seemingly unjustified evils reduces the epistemic probability of God’s existence. Arguments to this effect have been most famously and successfully championed by William Rowe. 1 His defense of the argument has developed over the years, but the basics of the argument...
متن کاملThe theoretical diagnosis of skepticism
Radical skepticism about the external implies that no belief about the external is even prima facie justified. A theoretical reply to skepticism has four stages. First, show which theories of epistemic justification support skeptical doubts (show which theories, given other reasonable assumptions, entail skepticism). Second, show which theories undermine skeptical doubts (show which theories, g...
متن کاملRorty, Williams, and Davidson: Skepticism and Metaepistemology
We revisit an important exchange on the problem of radical skepticism between Richard Rorty and Michael Williams. In his contribution to this exchange, Rorty defended the kind of transcendental approach to radical skepticism that is offered by Donald Davidson, in contrast to Williams’s Wittgenstein-inspired view. It is argued that the key to evaluating this debate is to understand the particula...
متن کاملOccam’s Razor, Dogmatism, Skepticism, and Skeptical Dogmatism
Underdetermination arguments for skepticism maintain that our common sense view of the external world is no better, evidentially speaking, than some skeptical competitors. An important and well-known response by dogmatists, those who believe our commonsense view is justified, appeals to abduction or inference to the best explanation. The predominant version of this strategy, going back at least...
متن کاملNeutral and Presumptive Doubt Perspectives of Professional Skepticism and Auditor Job Outcomes
This study examines the impact of auditor perspectives of professional skepticism (i.e., the neutral perspective and the presumptive doubt perspective) on critical job outcomes within the audit profession. It focuses on audit field and probability of tension occurance. In this situation, supervisor support must have affect on their turnover intemsion, based on skeptical traits of auditors. By...
متن کامل