A proposed foundation that introduces greater epistemic uncertainty than the original moral claim fails to satisfy the skeptic's demand for justification, as Flew's 'No-see-um' critique of natural theology implies.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Justification requires reducing, not multiplying, uncertainties about what grounds moral claims.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Flew's critique shows that unobservable posits (God's will) create explanatory problems rather than solve them.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.If a foundation is less epistemically accessible than the moral claim it supports, it fails as foundational justification.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.Some foundational theories are necessarily more abstract than their consequences without losing justificatory force.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Epistemic uncertainty in foundations differs from explanatory circularity; uncertainty alone doesn't undermine justification.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Flew's critique targets specific theological claims, not the general principle that foundations may be epistemically opaque.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Key Terms

Antony Flew(the philosopher whose argument is being cited): A 20th-century British philosopher famous for arguing that religious beliefs need to be testable and falsifiable to be intellectually respectable.
Epistemic uncertainty(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge)): The doubt or lack of confidence we have about whether something is actually true or whether we really know it.
Foundation/foundational claim(the proposed foundation is being evaluated for whether it actually justifies the moral claim): A basic belief or principle that is supposed to support and justify other beliefs, like a foundation supports a building.
Natural theology(Associated with Paley's 1802 book of the same name; sometimes used to refer to this approach more broadly): A posteriori investigations of nature for the purposes of supporting religious theses
No-see-um critique(Flew used this to challenge arguments that rely on invisible or undetectable foundations): An argument that says: 'Just because I can't see evidence for something doesn't prove it exists'—pointing out that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, but sometimes it reveals bad reasoning.
justification(Third condition of the tripartite account of knowledge): The condition on a knower's belief that excludes mere luck — the belief must be held in a way that is appropriate or warranted, not merely accidentally correct.
skeptic(The side usually taken by Academics in epistemological debates): One who challenges the possibility of knowledge

Connections

2 topics

Natural Theology1 linked Skepticism1 linked

Epistemic uncertainty in foundations differs from explanatory circularity; uncer...Flew's critique shows that unobservable posits (God's will) create explanatory p...

Details

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