当前位置: X-MOL 学术Sophia › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
No-fault Unbelief Defended: a Reply to Roberto Di Ceglie
Sophia Pub Date : 2021-01-23 , DOI: 10.1007/s11841-020-00817-1
Kirk Lougheed

In the philosophy of religion, ‘no-fault unbelief’ represents the view that a person can fail to believe that God exists through no fault of their own. On the other hand, ‘flawed unbelief’ says a person is always culpable for failing to believe that God exists. In a recent article in Sophia, Roberto Di Ceglie argues that some might find the usual reasons for rejecting ‘no-fault unbelief’ (i.e. intellectual or moral failure) to be offensive. In light of this, he proposes an alternative rejection of ‘no-fault unbelief’ based on the consequences it entails for both non-believers and believers. I argue that Di Ceglie does not do nearly enough to establish these consequences. I conclude that his rejection of ‘no-fault unbelief’ is at best incomplete or at worst false.



中文翻译:

坚守不犯错误的信念:对罗伯托·迪·塞格里(Roberto Di Ceglie)的回复

在宗教哲学中,“无过错的不信”代表了一个观点,即一个人可能不会相信上帝的存在是没有自己的过错。另一方面,“有缺陷的不相信”说一个人总是因为不相信上帝存在而受到了责难。罗伯托·迪·塞格里(Roberto Di Ceglie)在索菲亚(Sophia)最近的一篇文章中指出,有些人可能会发现拒绝“无过失不信仰”(即智力或道德上的失败)的常见原因令人反感。有鉴于此,他根据对非信徒和信徒的后果,提出了另一种拒绝“无过失不信”的建议。我认为Di Ceglie所做的工作不足以证明这些后果。我得出的结论是,他对“不犯错误的信念”的拒绝充其量是不完整的,或者最坏的情况是虚假的。

更新日期:2021-03-14
down
wechat
bug