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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The requirement that a genuine option must be momentous c... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The requirement that a genuine option must be momentous can be dropped without undermining the argument for theistic belief

    Modality & PossibilityNatural 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.The objection to James's argument relies on the momentousness requirement for genuine options
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Removing the momentousness requirement from the definition of a genuine option evades the objection
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.James's momentousness criterion does essential epistemic work by distinguishing decisions where evidential suspension of judgment is genuinely unavailable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Trivial or low-stakes options permit rational deferral or agnosticism precisely because nothing is lost by withholding belief pending evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without momentousness as a filter, the will-to-believe doctrine licenses doxastic voluntarism across arbitrarily many competing belief systems, undermining its selectivity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Clifford's evidentialism targets not the stakes of a belief but the epistemic irresponsibility of believing without sufficient evidence regardless of stakes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dropping momentousness while retaining the living/forced dyad still requires justifying why forced choice alone defeats the evidentialist norm, a burden James never discharges independently of momentousness.
      ?

      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 TheologyModality & Possibility

    Related

    Clifford's evidentialism targets not the stakes of a belief but the epistemic ir...Dropping momentousness while retaining the living/forced dyad still requires jus...James's momentousness criterion does essential epistemic work by distinguishing ...Removing the momentousness requirement from the definition of a genuine option e...
    +3 moreShow less
    The objection to James's argument relies on the momentousness requirement for ge...Trivial or low-stakes options permit rational deferral or agnosticism precisely ...Without momentousness as a filter, the will-to-believe doctrine licenses doxasti...

    Similar

    Removing the momentousness requirement from the definition of a genuin...88%The objection to James's argument relies on the momentousness requirem...87%A pragmatic argument provides strong support for theism only if it giv...77%It would be premature to hold that theistic moral pragmatic arguments ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pragmatic-belief-god
    View source passageHide passage
    In any case, given that theism is intellectually open and that it’s part of a genuine option, and given that there are vital goods attached to theistic belief, James says, the hope that it is true is a sufficient reason to believe. In addition this objection is easily evaded if we revise the notion of a genuine option by removing the requirement that an option is genuine only if momentous, although James himself may have been loath to drop that requirement.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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