https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//index.html?id=416 Index des publications de Authors Francis Jonbäck fr 0 https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4801-2301-02.html According to Michael Bergmann, Skeptical Theism consists of two components: firstly, the belief that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good immaterial person who created the world, and secondly, the skeptical claim that we have no reason to believe that the possible goods and evils we know of are representative of the goods and evils that exist. According to the Global Skepticism Objection, Skeptical Theism entails that we should not be surprised if we are radically deceived by God: there just might be a greater good that can figure in a reason God has for deceiving us about reality. In support of this objection, Stephen Law presents an amusing analogy involving Olly and his reality-projector. In this paper, I outline the Global Skepticism Objection and Law’s case in support of it. I then respond by arguing that the scope of Skeptical Theism should be restricted, and seek to justify this through a narrower construal of Theism and an appeal to common sense. Tue, 05 Jan 2021 16:20:23 +0100 Tue, 05 Jan 2021 16:20:23 +0100 https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4801-2301-02.html https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4735-2015-1-05.html Abstract: Friendly atheists hold Atheism to be true, and believe that theists may be rational when holding Theism to be true. Theists may be rational, they claim, either because they lack the evidence for Atheism, or because they are mistaken regarding the evidential force of the arguments for Theism. Both these reasons can be interpreted as suggesting that theists are making a mistake, and perhaps even that they are blameworthy for having made that mistake. In this paper, I argue that friendly atheists might even say that the most intellectually oriented theists are rational and blameless for holding Theism to be true. I give two reasons for this. The first reason is based on the denial of doxastic voluntarism regarding at least some of our beliefs. Theists might not have voluntary control with respect to their belief that God exists. The second reason is based on a meta-epistemological consideration. Often, we choose our epistemology by looking at paradigm examples of knowledge. Growing up in a theistic context might lead one to regard the belief that God exists as a paradigm example of knowledge, and a theist could be considered perfectly rational and blameless for doing so, even though they may be aware of reasonable arguments for Atheism. With these modifications, I suggest that Friendly Atheism is very friendly indeed.   Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:38:02 +0100 Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:38:02 +0100 https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4735-2015-1-05.html https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4647-17-2-fall-2012-03.html In this paper Skeptical Theism is described, applied and defended. Furthermore, William Rowe’s position of Friendly Atheism is described and a version of Friendly Theism suggested. It is shown that Skeptical Theism can be defended against two common arguments and that skeptical theists might be able to adopt the position of Friendly Theism. Tue, 05 Jan 2021 11:26:53 +0100 Tue, 05 Jan 2021 11:26:53 +0100 https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4647-17-2-fall-2012-03.html