邪恶仍然是证据:评论阿尔梅达

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION RELIGIOUS STUDIES Pub Date : 2023-05-22 DOI:10.1017/s0034412523000483
Robert Bass
{"title":"邪恶仍然是证据:评论阿尔梅达","authors":"Robert Bass","doi":"10.1017/s0034412523000483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Michael Almeida has recently tried to show that if S5 correctly represents metaphysical necessity, there can be no non-trivial evidence for or against the existence of the traditional God. Evidence would thus be irrelevant to the reasonability of traditional theistic belief. Almeida's argument has implications beyond its announced target: it amounts to a new argument for sweeping scepticism. Almeida's argument for the irrelevance of evidence to the existence of God would apply to any state of affairs that entails some metaphysical necessity. In S5, every state of affairs entails some metaphysical necessity, so Almeida should conclude that non-trivial evidence for or against any state of affairs is impossible. I argue that the problem is not with S5 but with inadequately motivated assumptions about evidential support. Avoiding those assumptions disables the argument for sweeping scepticism and without foreclosing the possibility of non-trivial evidence for or against the existence of the traditional God.","PeriodicalId":45888,"journal":{"name":"RELIGIOUS STUDIES","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evil is still evidence: comment on Almeida\",\"authors\":\"Robert Bass\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0034412523000483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Michael Almeida has recently tried to show that if S5 correctly represents metaphysical necessity, there can be no non-trivial evidence for or against the existence of the traditional God. Evidence would thus be irrelevant to the reasonability of traditional theistic belief. Almeida's argument has implications beyond its announced target: it amounts to a new argument for sweeping scepticism. Almeida's argument for the irrelevance of evidence to the existence of God would apply to any state of affairs that entails some metaphysical necessity. In S5, every state of affairs entails some metaphysical necessity, so Almeida should conclude that non-trivial evidence for or against any state of affairs is impossible. I argue that the problem is not with S5 but with inadequately motivated assumptions about evidential support. Avoiding those assumptions disables the argument for sweeping scepticism and without foreclosing the possibility of non-trivial evidence for or against the existence of the traditional God.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RELIGIOUS STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RELIGIOUS STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1095\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412523000483\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RELIGIOUS STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1095","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412523000483","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Michael Almeida最近试图证明,如果S5正确地代表了形而上学的必然性,就不可能有非琐碎的证据支持或反对传统上帝的存在。因此,证据将与传统有神论信仰的合理性无关。阿尔梅达的论点的含义超出了其宣布的目标:它相当于对广泛怀疑主义的新论点。阿尔梅达关于证据与上帝存在无关的论点适用于任何涉及某种形而上学必然性的事物状态。在第五章中,每一种状态都包含某种形而上学的必然性,所以阿尔梅达应该得出结论,支持或反对任何一种状态的非琐碎证据是不可能的。我认为,问题不在于S5,而在于对证据支持的动机不足的假设。避免这些假设会使全面怀疑主义的论点失效,也不会排除支持或反对传统上帝存在的重要证据的可能性。
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
Evil is still evidence: comment on Almeida
Michael Almeida has recently tried to show that if S5 correctly represents metaphysical necessity, there can be no non-trivial evidence for or against the existence of the traditional God. Evidence would thus be irrelevant to the reasonability of traditional theistic belief. Almeida's argument has implications beyond its announced target: it amounts to a new argument for sweeping scepticism. Almeida's argument for the irrelevance of evidence to the existence of God would apply to any state of affairs that entails some metaphysical necessity. In S5, every state of affairs entails some metaphysical necessity, so Almeida should conclude that non-trivial evidence for or against any state of affairs is impossible. I argue that the problem is not with S5 but with inadequately motivated assumptions about evidential support. Avoiding those assumptions disables the argument for sweeping scepticism and without foreclosing the possibility of non-trivial evidence for or against the existence of the traditional God.
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
RELIGIOUS STUDIES
RELIGIOUS STUDIES RELIGION-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
33.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Religious Studies is an international journal devoted to the problems of the philosophy of religion as they arise out of classical and contemporary discussions and from varied religious traditions. More than 25 articles are published each year, and the journal also contains an extensive book review section.
期刊最新文献
One goodness, many goodnesses, and the Divine Ideas Imitation Theory Divine contradiction: fascinating but unpersuasive Divine Contradiction: some snippets Divine Contradiction: replies to critics Divine command theory and the (supposed) incoherence of self-commanding
×
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