Skeptical Theism, Free Will Skepticism and Atheism: Pondering the Scope of Moral Paralysis

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Rafael Miranda-Rojas
{"title":"Skeptical Theism, Free Will Skepticism and Atheism: Pondering the Scope of Moral Paralysis","authors":"Rafael Miranda-Rojas","doi":"10.18566/CUETEO.V46N105.A06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I aim to show that Skeptical Theism (ST) implies the rejection of Free Will Skepticism (FWS). This is so because ST holds the so-called evidential argument from evil against theism. This argument presupposes free will (as a hidden premise), conducting this way to a skeptical conclusion without questioning the plausibility of FWS in the first place. I argue that this kind of conflict between two skeptical scenarios removes the validity of ST and FWS: It is ad hoc to assume a skeptical scenario S1 (ST) that supports thesis T1, and implicitly rejects the consequences of another skeptical scenario S2 (FWS) that discards T1. This implies the rejection of the so-called Moral Paralysis (MP) and shows a tension between Moral Skepticism (MS), ST and FWS. Moreover, the links between skepticism, dogmatism and atheism, as a case of epistemic defeasibility, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":32990,"journal":{"name":"Cuestiones Teologicas","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuestiones Teologicas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18566/CUETEO.V46N105.A06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In this paper, I aim to show that Skeptical Theism (ST) implies the rejection of Free Will Skepticism (FWS). This is so because ST holds the so-called evidential argument from evil against theism. This argument presupposes free will (as a hidden premise), conducting this way to a skeptical conclusion without questioning the plausibility of FWS in the first place. I argue that this kind of conflict between two skeptical scenarios removes the validity of ST and FWS: It is ad hoc to assume a skeptical scenario S1 (ST) that supports thesis T1, and implicitly rejects the consequences of another skeptical scenario S2 (FWS) that discards T1. This implies the rejection of the so-called Moral Paralysis (MP) and shows a tension between Moral Skepticism (MS), ST and FWS. Moreover, the links between skepticism, dogmatism and atheism, as a case of epistemic defeasibility, are discussed.
怀疑有神论、自由意志怀疑论和无神论:思考道德瘫痪的范围
在本文中,我的目的是证明怀疑有神论(ST)意味着拒绝自由意志怀疑论(FWS)。这是因为ST持有所谓的来自邪恶的证据来反对有神论。这一论点以自由意志为前提(作为一个隐藏的前提),从而得出了一个怀疑的结论,而没有首先质疑FWS的合理性。我认为,两种怀疑情景之间的这种冲突消除了ST和FWS的有效性:假设一个支持论文T1的怀疑情景S1 (ST),并隐含地拒绝另一个抛弃T1的怀疑情景S2 (FWS)的结果,这是特别的。这意味着对所谓的道德瘫痪(MP)的拒绝,并显示了道德怀疑主义(MS), ST和FWS之间的紧张关系。此外,怀疑主义,教条主义和无神论之间的联系,作为一个案例的认识上的可否定性,进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信