Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T06:04:09.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peerhood in deep religious disagreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2015

STEFAN REINING
STEFAN REINING*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany e-mail: stefan.reining@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My aim in this article is to widen the scope of the current debate on peer disagreement by applying it to a kind of case it has hitherto remained silent about – namely, to cases of disagreement in which one of the disagreeing parties bases her opinion on a private religious experience to which the other party has no access. In order to do this, I will introduce a modified version of the notion of peerhood – a version that, in contrast to the one employed in the current debate, can be fruitfully applied to the troublesome kind of case in question. I will then employ this new notion in order to specify the degree of conciliation rationally required from the disagreeing parties in the kind of case in question.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 403 - 419
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, William P. (1991) Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca NY & London: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Beardsworth, Timothy (1977) A Sense of Presence: The Phenomenology of Certain Kinds of Visionary and Ecstatic Experience, Based on a Thousand Contemporary First-Hand Accounts (Oxford: Religious Experience Research Unit).Google Scholar
Bogardus, Tomas (2013) ‘Disagreeing with the (religious) skeptic’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 74, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David (2007) ‘Epistemology of disagreement: the good news’, Philosophical Review, 116, 187–217.Google Scholar
Christensen, David (2013) ‘Epistemic modesty defended’, in Christensen, D. & Lackey, J. (eds) The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Stuart (2013) ‘A defense of the (almost) equal weight view’, in Christensen, D. & Lackey, J. (eds) The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 98–117.Google Scholar
Coleman, Edwin (1995) ‘There is no fallacy of arguing from authority’, Informal Logic, 17, 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, Adam (2007) ‘Reflection and disagreement’, Noûs, 41, 478–502.Google Scholar
Elga, Adam (2010) ‘How to disagree about how to disagree’, in Feldman, R. & Warfield, T. (eds) Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 175–186.Google Scholar
Fogelin, Robert J. (1985) ‘The logic of deep disagreements’, Informal Logic, 7, 1–8.Google Scholar
Frances, Bryan (2010) ‘The reflective epistemic renegade’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81, 419–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frances, Bryan (2015) ‘Religious disagreement’, in Oppy, G. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion (London & New York: Routledge), 180–191.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. (2001) ‘Experts: which ones should you trust?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63, 85–110.Google Scholar
Gutting, Gary (1982) Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press).Google Scholar
James, William (1902) The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (New York NY: Modern Library).Google Scholar
John, Stephen (2011) ‘Expert testimony and epistemological free-riding: the MMR controversy’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 61, 496–517.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas (2005) ‘The epistemic significance of disagreement’, Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 1, 167–196.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas (2010) ‘Peer disagreement and higher-order evidence’, in Feldman, R. & Warfield, T. (eds) Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 111–174.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas (2013) ‘Disagreement and the burdens of judgment’, in Christensen, D. & Lackey, J. (eds) The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 31–53.Google Scholar
King, Nathan L. (2012) ‘Disagreement: what's the problem? or A good peer is hard to find’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85, 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizrahi, Moti (2013) ‘Why arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments’, Informal Logic, 33, 57–79.Google Scholar
Seidel, Markus (2014) ‘Throwing the baby out with the water: from reasonably scrutinizing authorities to rampant scepticism about expertise’, Informal Logic, 34, 192–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph (2007) The Nature of Normativity (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar