First-Order Theistic Religion: Intentional Power Beyond Belief
AbstractDiversity and disagreement in the religious beliefs among many religious people seem here to stay, however much they bother some inquirers. Even so, the latter inquirers appear not to be similarly bothered by diversity and disagreement in the scientific beliefs among many scientists. They sometimes propose that we should take religious beliefs to be noncognitive and perhaps even nonontological and noncausal regarding their apparent referents, but they do not propose the same for scientific beliefs. Perhaps they would account for this difference in terms of more extensive diversity and disagreement among religious beliefs than scientific beliefs. We shall attend to the alleged significance of diversity and disagreement among religious beliefs, with an eye toward its bearing on epistemic and ontological matters in religion. In particular, we shall ask whether the significance recommends a retreat from first-order to “second-order” religion, as suggested by Branden Thornhill-Miller and Peter Millican.
Colyvan, Mark, Jay L. Garfield, and Graham Priest. “Problems With the Argument From Fine Tuning.” Synthese 145, no. 3 (2005): 325–38. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0.
Gould, Stephen J. Rocks of ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine, 1999.
Moser, Paul K. Knowledge and Evidence. Cambridge studies in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989.
—. The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.
—. The Severity of God: Religion and Philosophy Reconceived. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013.
—. The God Relationship: The Ethics for Inquiry about the Divine. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017.
Salamon, Janusz. “Atheism and Agatheism in the Global Ethic Discourse: Reply to Millican and Thornhill-Miller.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7, no. 4 (2015): 197–245. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v7i4.94.
Thornhill-Miller, Branden, and Peter Millican. “The Common-Core/Diversity Dilemma: Revisions of Humean thought, New Empirical Research, and the Limits of Rational Religious Belief.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7, no. 1 (2015): 1–49. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v7i1.128.