Mark Decker

Question 1

Religious Pluralism?

Answer 1

It is possible for more than one religion to be true.

Question 2

Religious Exclusivism?

Answer 2

It is not possible for more than one religon to be true.

Question 3

Religious Skepticism?

Answer 3

For any given religon, it is not possible to know whether that religon is true or false.

Question 4

An argument for the possibility of at least one correct religon?

Answer 4

• No religon could be correct only if either (A) no religon makes any assertions, or (B) every religon is internally incoherant.
  -Religions makes assertions
• Not every religon is internally incoherant
  (-) It is not the case that no religon could be correct.

Question 5

Best explanation argument for religous pluralism?

Answer 5

-there is a widespread religous diversity
-religous pluralismis the best explanation for why there is widespread religous diversity
-only true explanations are the best.
(-) Religious pluralism is true
{objection: (P2) is false because exclusivism offers just as good of an explanation for why there is religious diversity, and the explanation (P2) offers forgets that pluralism is compatible with there being only one actually correct religon. }

Question 6

Core commitment argument for religious pluralism?

Answer 6

• more than one religon can be true if the core commitment of each religon are the same.
• the core commitments of each religon are the same.
  (-) more than one religon can be true
  {objection: (P2) is false- there is no plausible interpretation of the diverse religous traditions in the world that doesn’t involve fundamental incompatibilities among different religons.

Question 7

an argument for religous skepticism?

Answer 7

-It is possible to know that a specific religon is true only if human reasoning abilities are not limited.
- human reasoning abilities are limited.
(-) it is not possible to know that a specific religon is true.
{objection- (P1) is false - there are all kinds of things we know despite having limited reasoning abilities, so there is no principal reason for thinking we couldn’t know whether a religon is true or false despite having limited reasoning abilities.}

Question 8

An argument for religious exclusivism?

Answer 8

• religons are individualized by their core assertions: R1 & R2 are different religons only if R1 & R2 differ in atleast one core assertion.
• any core assertions that differ will either be contrary or contradictory.
  -if the core assertions are contrary, then R1 & R2 cannot both be true.
• if core assertions contradict, then R1 & R2 cannot both be true.
  (-) for any pair of religons, R1 & R2, it is not possible for both to be true.
  {objection- if it is not possible for more than one religon in a pair of different religons to be true, then, at most, there could only be one true religon.}
  (-) at most, there can be only one true religon.

Question 9

Disagreement?

Answer 9

incompatible beliefs. Audrey & Cooper DISAGREE only if audrey believes that Z and cooper either believes that Z is false or believes something that entails Z is false.

Question 10

reasonable disagreement?

Answer 10

a disagreement between epistemic peers in which all parties are rational in holding to their original beliefs.

Question 11

An argument for the possibility of reasonable disagreements?

Answer 11

• the fact that someone believes something is not a reason to have that belief.
  -revising one’s belief in light of peer disagreement would be treating the fact that someone has a belief as a reason for that belief.
• one should only revise ones view in light of peer disagreement if believes are reasons.
  (-) one should revise one’s belief in light of peer disagreement.

Question 12

metaphysics?

Answer 12

what makes it true. ( what is it? what exist? how things are?)

Question 13

epistimology?

Answer 13

Investigation. ( how you know? knowledge..)

Question 14

realativism about truth?

Answer 14

there are no facts which are independent of belief.

Question 15

The Unique thesis?

Answer 15

a body of evidence will justify at most one proposition out of a set of incompatible proposition.

• believes that Z
• believes that not -Z
• suspended judgment

Question 16

epistemic peers?

Answer 16

only if roughly the same equivelant background, reasoning, abilities, and same evidence.

Question 17

An argument for the possibility of reasonable disagreements?

Answer 17

• beliefs are not reasons- the fact that someone has a particular belief is not a reason for having that belief. (otherwise, every belief would justify itself)
• revising ones views in light of peer disagreements would be treating the fact that that someone has a belief as a reason to have that belief.
• revising ones view in light of peer disagreement is permissible only if doing so would not be treating the fact that someone has a belief as a reason to have that belief.