Replies to critics: Very brief, very selective, rather snarky


Book Section

© 2014 Taylor and Francis. The notion that a serious discussion of the existence of God should require pro and con, response and rejoinder, timekeepers, votes of who “won”, and judges of rhetoric is laughable. Paul Moser is a serious and influential epistemologist. He employs expertise in the area to identify an epistemic location from which you can defend a belief in God as responsible while ungrounded by justification. And the mere fact of acquaintance suffices to justify Moser’s belief in God in the absence of any argument in which, for example, an assertion of his/her/its presence would serve as a premise. Knowledge by acquaintance is a familiar device in epistemology. Moser Conveniently, however, Moser provides it himself earlier in his own essay: “Neither mere claims nor mere subjective experiences are self-attesting about objective reality”. Hence Christian philosophers would do well to focus on these problems if they really want to convince anyone but themselves that their views are not irrational.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Rosenberg, A

Published Date

  • January 1, 2014

Book Title

  • Is Faith in God Reasonable?: Debates in Philosophy, Science, and Rhetoric

Start / End Page

  • 166 - 170

International Standard Book Number 13 (ISBN-13)

  • 9780415709408

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.4324/9781315885544-12

Citation Source

  • Scopus