宗教信仰、偶然思想和合理分歧

Eva Schmidt
{"title":"宗教信仰、偶然思想和合理分歧","authors":"Eva Schmidt","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This comment raises two worries for Crane’s view of religious beliefs and their contents. First, I argue that his appeal to inferentialism about the contents of dispositional beliefs cannot fully avoid the problem of inconsistent beliefs. For the same problem can be raised for occurrent thought, and the inferentialist solution is not available there. Second, I argue that religious beliefs differ from ordinary beliefs with respect to their justification in cases of peer disagreements. This suggests that noncognitivism about religious beliefs, which Crane opposes, is the correct view after all.","PeriodicalId":507522,"journal":{"name":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","volume":"116 1","pages":"438 - 446"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement\",\"authors\":\"Eva Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This comment raises two worries for Crane’s view of religious beliefs and their contents. First, I argue that his appeal to inferentialism about the contents of dispositional beliefs cannot fully avoid the problem of inconsistent beliefs. For the same problem can be raised for occurrent thought, and the inferentialist solution is not available there. Second, I argue that religious beliefs differ from ordinary beliefs with respect to their justification in cases of peer disagreements. This suggests that noncognitivism about religious beliefs, which Crane opposes, is the correct view after all.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie\",\"volume\":\"116 1\",\"pages\":\"438 - 446\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 本评论对克莱恩关于宗教信仰及其内容的观点提出了两点担忧。首先,我认为他对处置性信念内容的推论主义诉求不能完全避免不一致信念的问题。因为同样的问题也会出现在发生性思维中,而推论主义的解决方案并不能解决这个问题。其次,我认为宗教信仰与普通信仰的不同之处在于其在同行意见分歧情况下的合理性。这表明克莱恩所反对的关于宗教信仰的非认知主义终究是正确的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement
Abstract This comment raises two worries for Crane’s view of religious beliefs and their contents. First, I argue that his appeal to inferentialism about the contents of dispositional beliefs cannot fully avoid the problem of inconsistent beliefs. For the same problem can be raised for occurrent thought, and the inferentialist solution is not available there. Second, I argue that religious beliefs differ from ordinary beliefs with respect to their justification in cases of peer disagreements. This suggests that noncognitivism about religious beliefs, which Crane opposes, is the correct view after all.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信