怀疑有神论、自由意志怀疑论和无神论:思考道德瘫痪的范围

Q4 Arts and Humanities Cuestiones Teologicas Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.18566/CUETEO.V46N105.A06
Rafael Miranda-Rojas
{"title":"怀疑有神论、自由意志怀疑论和无神论:思考道德瘫痪的范围","authors":"Rafael Miranda-Rojas","doi":"10.18566/CUETEO.V46N105.A06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I aim to show that Skeptical Theism (ST) implies the rejection of Free Will Skepticism (FWS). This is so because ST holds the so-called evidential argument from evil against theism. This argument presupposes free will (as a hidden premise), conducting this way to a skeptical conclusion without questioning the plausibility of FWS in the first place. I argue that this kind of conflict between two skeptical scenarios removes the validity of ST and FWS: It is ad hoc to assume a skeptical scenario S1 (ST) that supports thesis T1, and implicitly rejects the consequences of another skeptical scenario S2 (FWS) that discards T1. This implies the rejection of the so-called Moral Paralysis (MP) and shows a tension between Moral Skepticism (MS), ST and FWS. Moreover, the links between skepticism, dogmatism and atheism, as a case of epistemic defeasibility, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":32990,"journal":{"name":"Cuestiones Teologicas","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Skeptical Theism, Free Will Skepticism and Atheism: Pondering the Scope of Moral Paralysis\",\"authors\":\"Rafael Miranda-Rojas\",\"doi\":\"10.18566/CUETEO.V46N105.A06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I aim to show that Skeptical Theism (ST) implies the rejection of Free Will Skepticism (FWS). This is so because ST holds the so-called evidential argument from evil against theism. This argument presupposes free will (as a hidden premise), conducting this way to a skeptical conclusion without questioning the plausibility of FWS in the first place. I argue that this kind of conflict between two skeptical scenarios removes the validity of ST and FWS: It is ad hoc to assume a skeptical scenario S1 (ST) that supports thesis T1, and implicitly rejects the consequences of another skeptical scenario S2 (FWS) that discards T1. This implies the rejection of the so-called Moral Paralysis (MP) and shows a tension between Moral Skepticism (MS), ST and FWS. Moreover, the links between skepticism, dogmatism and atheism, as a case of epistemic defeasibility, are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cuestiones Teologicas\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cuestiones Teologicas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18566/CUETEO.V46N105.A06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuestiones Teologicas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18566/CUETEO.V46N105.A06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在本文中,我的目的是证明怀疑有神论(ST)意味着拒绝自由意志怀疑论(FWS)。这是因为ST持有所谓的来自邪恶的证据来反对有神论。这一论点以自由意志为前提(作为一个隐藏的前提),从而得出了一个怀疑的结论,而没有首先质疑FWS的合理性。我认为,两种怀疑情景之间的这种冲突消除了ST和FWS的有效性:假设一个支持论文T1的怀疑情景S1 (ST),并隐含地拒绝另一个抛弃T1的怀疑情景S2 (FWS)的结果,这是特别的。这意味着对所谓的道德瘫痪(MP)的拒绝,并显示了道德怀疑主义(MS), ST和FWS之间的紧张关系。此外,怀疑主义,教条主义和无神论之间的联系,作为一个案例的认识上的可否定性,进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Skeptical Theism, Free Will Skepticism and Atheism: Pondering the Scope of Moral Paralysis
In this paper, I aim to show that Skeptical Theism (ST) implies the rejection of Free Will Skepticism (FWS). This is so because ST holds the so-called evidential argument from evil against theism. This argument presupposes free will (as a hidden premise), conducting this way to a skeptical conclusion without questioning the plausibility of FWS in the first place. I argue that this kind of conflict between two skeptical scenarios removes the validity of ST and FWS: It is ad hoc to assume a skeptical scenario S1 (ST) that supports thesis T1, and implicitly rejects the consequences of another skeptical scenario S2 (FWS) that discards T1. This implies the rejection of the so-called Moral Paralysis (MP) and shows a tension between Moral Skepticism (MS), ST and FWS. Moreover, the links between skepticism, dogmatism and atheism, as a case of epistemic defeasibility, are discussed.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reforma y Sinodalidad. Hacia un ecumenismo profundizado a todos los niveles en la teología de Hans Küng Spiritual Hunger and the Search for God in Augustine’s Confessions: A New ‘Sensory’ Approach to the Text-Audience Interaction La relación entre palabra y desierto en la semántica bíblica y en la vocación salvífica de la tradición judeocristiana La estrategia de convivencia en la Primera carta de Pedro. Un ejemplo de aplicación del método sociológico “crítica espacial” El “clima eclesial” de la recepción latinoamericana del Vaticano II como trasfondo del pensamiento del papa Francisco
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1