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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The requirement that a genuine option must be momentous can be dropped without undermining the argument for theistic belief

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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