Non-accidental piety: reliable reasoning and modally robust adherence to the divine will

In this article I formulate a skeptical argument against the possibility of adhering to the divine will in a non-accidental way. In particular, my focus in the article is on a widely embraced modal condition of accidentality, according to which non-accidentality has to do with a person manifesting d...

Πλήρης περιγραφή

Αποθηκεύτηκε σε:  
Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
Κύριος συγγραφέας: Auvinen, Joona (Συγγραφέας)
Τύπος μέσου: Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο
Γλώσσα:Αγγλικά
Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Φόρτωση...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Έκδοση: Springer Nature B. V 2022
Στο/Στη: International journal for philosophy of religion
Έτος: 2022, Τόμος: 91, Τεύχος: 1, Σελίδες: 43-61
Τυποποιημένες (ακολουθίες) λέξεων-κλειδιών:B Θέληση του Θεού / Εκπλήρωση / Πρόθεση / Τροπικότητα (γλωσσολογία) / Σκέψη / Προδιάθεση (Ψυχολογία)
Σημειογραφίες IxTheo:AB Φιλοσοφία της θρησκείας, Κριτική της θρησκείας, Αθεϊσμός
ΑΕ Ψυχολογία της θρησκείας
NBE Ανθρωπολογία
VA Φιλοσοφία
Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά:B Epistemology of religion
B Credit
B Divine Command Theory
B Dispositions
B Accidentality
B Conscience
Διαθέσιμο Online: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Περιγραφή
Σύνοψη:In this article I formulate a skeptical argument against the possibility of adhering to the divine will in a non-accidental way. In particular, my focus in the article is on a widely embraced modal condition of accidentality, according to which non-accidentality has to do with a person manifesting dispositions that result in a given outcome in a modally robust way. The skeptical argument arises from two observations: first, various authors in the epistemology of religion have argued that it is often not possible to reason reliably about religious matters, and second, non-accidentally adhering to a given norm is often associated with reasoning about the requirements of the norm in question in a reliable way. In addition to pointing out the existence of the argument, I outline strategies in which religious thinkers could reasonably challenge it by denying that reliable reasoning about the requirements of divine will is necessary for adhering to it in a non-accidental manner. Hence, I argue that the possibility of non-accidental adherence to the divine will does not depend solely on whether it is possible to reliably reason about what it requires one to do.
ISSN:1572-8684
Περιλαμβάνει:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-021-09806-x