Michael Bergmann

This paper offers a commonsense response to Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. The first stage of that argument concludes that the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable (R) is low or inscrutable given the claims that naturalism is true (N) and that our cognitive faculties came into existence by way of the mechanisms of evolution (E)—i.e., that P(R/N&E) is low or inscrutable. The second stage claims that the fact that P(R/N&E) is low or inscrutable constitutes a defeater for belief in R, for anyone who endorses N&E. For the purposes of this paper, I will grant to Plantinga the conclusion of the first stage of his argument—that P(R/N&E) is low or inscrutable when specified to us. My contention is simply that, given what we can know via commonsense, this does not necessarily constitute a defeater for R for the supporter of N&E.

This paper is a response to John Schellenberg’s paper, “Skeptical Theism and Skeptical Atheism,” in which he raises objections to theistic belief that are supposed to cause special trouble for skeptical theists. In section I, I provide some clarificatory comments concerning skeptical theism. In section II, I evaluate an atheistic argument that Schellenberg finds particularly impressive. In section III, I examine the view Schellenberg calls ‘total evidence skepticism’ and consider its bearing on theistic belief. In the final section I consider whether Schellenberg is right in thinking that skeptical theism commits one to total evidence skepticism and to some of the other skeptical theses he proposes.

This paper presents a dilemma for internalism in epistemology—a view according to which a person’s belief is justified only if that person is aware (or potentially aware) of something that contributes to that belief’s justification. The dilemma says that either this required awareness involves conceiving of the object of awareness as contributing to the relevant belief’s justification or it does not. If it does, then internalism is saddled with vicious regress problems; if it does not, then internalism falls prey to a prominent objection to externalism. Either way, we should not endorse internalism. After defending each of the steps in this objection to internalism, I consider whether certain internalist views (those of Paul Moser, Richard Fumerton, and Laurence BonJour) can escape this dilemma. I conclude that they cannot. An Appendix to the paper raises objections to a similar dilemma proposed by Stephen Hetherington.

Commonsensism takes commonsense starting points seriously in responding to and rejecting radical skepticism. Skeptical theism endorses a sort of skepticism that, according to some, has radical skeptical implications. This suggests that there is a tension between commonsensism and skeptical theism that makes it difficult for a person rationally to hold both. In this paper I explain why there is no tension between those two positions. This explanation is then used to respond to several recent objections to skeptical theism. Along the way I offer a theory of error to explain why people mistakenly believe, of some horrific evils, that it’s just obvious that a perfectly loving God wouldn’t permit them.