Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A proponent of theistic pragmatic arguments cannot swear ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A proponent of theistic pragmatic arguments cannot swear allegiance to Strong Evidentialism (E)

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Strong Evidentialism (E) forbids believing p when evidence is inadequate (e.g., probability of one-half)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theistic pragmatic arguments rely on believing p in cases where evidence is silent or inadequate
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strong Evidentialism can be reformulated probabilistically: one may believe p when pragmatic stakes raise the epistemic threshold, not bypass it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.William James's 'will to believe' itself presupposes that evidential considerations have already produced genuine uncertainty, not full silence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A reconciled position holds that pragmatic considerations determine which evidentially tied hypotheses to act on, preserving evidentialist constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Chisholm's epistemic conservatism permits belief in p when evidence is equipoised, provided no defeater exists, without violating evidentialist norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates Strong Evidentialism with Clifford's strict formulation, ignoring evidentialist positions that allow belief under genuine evidential symmetry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A reconciled position holds that pragmatic considerations determine which eviden...Chisholm's epistemic conservatism permits belief in p when evidence is equipoise...Strong Evidentialism (E) forbids believing p when evidence is inadequate (e.g., ...Strong Evidentialism can be reformulated probabilistically: one may believe p wh...
    +3 moreShow less
    The claim conflates Strong Evidentialism with Clifford's strict formulation, ign...Theistic pragmatic arguments rely on believing p in cases where evidence is sile...William James's 'will to believe' itself presupposes that evidential considerati...

    Similar

    A proponent of theistic pragmatic arguments can conform to Weak Eviden...89%It would be premature to hold that theistic moral pragmatic arguments ...79%A similar problem applies to theistic moral pragmatic arguments insofa...77%A pragmatic argument provides strong support for theism only if it giv...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pragmatic-belief-god
    View source passageHide passage
    According to (E′) if the evidence is adequate, then the question is settled. If there’s a preponderance of support for p, then one is required to believe p. Where the evidence speaks, one must listen and obey. (E′) differs from (E) in part since it says nothing about those occasions in which the evidence is silent, or is inadequate. If one assigns p a probability of one-half, then there’s not a preponderance of evidence in support of p. (E′) says nothing about believing p in that case. Principle
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit