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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42