The Obligation to Believe in God

Dissertation, University of Notre Dame (1987)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this dissertation I defend the traditional claim that everyone ought to believe in God. In chapter one I limit the "everyone" to all normal adults, and the "ought" is said to be epistemic. "To believe in God" is taken to mean to believe that he exists and has a certain set of attributes. ;In chapter two I defend the notion of epistemic obligation. Beginning with our twin epistemic goals to believe truths and reject falsehoods, I suggest that a positive normative term like an epistemic ought is needed. Justification is found to be inadequate to express the intent of the positive goal and obligation to gain truths. Two types of epistemic obligation are presented: basic and non-basic. ;In chapter three I consider and set aside the objection that no one could be obliged to believe in God because we are not doxastic agents who can just decide to believe at will. I suggest that belief in God is either indirectly subject to the will; or it is directly subject to the will in that we can sometimes either accede to or hinder our experienced tendencies to believe. I discuss several generally neglected problems with the popular notion that our believings are indirectly subject to our wills. ;In chapter four I consider whether there might be available an inferential defense of the traditional claim. I examine some leading contemporary expressions of the traditional theistic arguments , concluding that while each may obligate some people none of them can--as presented--defend the traditional claim. I conclude that the prospects for an inferential defense appear to be dim. ;In chapter five I present an argument from divine fairness which shows why some theists have reason to expect God to make knowledge of his existence available to everyone. I then offer adaptations of Swinburne's views on religious experience and Plantinga's on proper basicality as suggestions of how God could be making his existence known to all. I offer two possible reasons why, if these suggestions are true, not everyone believes: sin and self-deception

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,072

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Doxastic Normativity.Daniel J. Singer - 2013 - Dissertation, University of Michigan
Evidentialism, "the Will to Believe," and Belief in God.Charles S. Layman - 1983 - Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles
Is It Natural to Believe In God?Mark R. Talbot - 1989 - Faith and Philosophy 6 (2):155-171.
Singling Out God.Timothy Walter Bartel - 1983 - Dissertation, University of Michigan
Epistemic Normativity is Independent of our Goals.Alex Worsnip - 2024 - In Blake Roeber, Ernest Sosa, Matthias Steup & John Turri (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 3rd edition. Wiley-Blackwell.
Epistemic and Moral Obligation Regarding Believing.Colin Russell Mathers - 1998 - Dissertation, The University of Rochester
Skeptheism: Is Knowledge of God’s Existence Possible?Moti Mizrahi - 2017 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9 (1):41-64.
Prudential Objections to Atheism.Amanda Askell - 2019 - In Graham Oppy (ed.), A Companion to Atheism and Philosophy. Hoboken: Blackwell. pp. 506–520.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references