Michael Bergmann

This chapter defends the view that an awareness of the facts of religious disagreement doesn’t make theistic belief irrational. The first section makes some general remarks about when discovering disagreement (on any topic) makes it rational to give up your beliefs. The second section argues that in cases of disagreement about theism, the theist’s evidence for theism and for the reliability of her theistic belief is often strong enough to support steadfastness in the face of disagreement. The third section argues that the theist’s evidence for the reliability of her disputant’s atheistic beliefs is often weak enough to allow her to rationally demote her atheist interlocutor. The final section focuses on theists whose disagreement-based doubts about theism persist. These doubts could result in defeaters for theistic belief, but the gift of faith can compensate for this.

This book contains ten chapters that develop and critically engage themes from the work of Richard Swinburne. The chapters focus on both natural theology (dealing with what can be known about God and his relation to the world independently of any particular religious tradition or revelation) and philosophical theology (reflecting critically on the doctrines associated with particular religious traditions). The first six chapters address topics familiar from natural theology. A section on the nature of faith includes a defense of noncognitivism and of the priority of value over belief; a section on theistic arguments advocates for coherence as a more fundamental criterion than simplicity in evaluating theistic explanations and offers a skeptical theist’s critique of an aesthetic argument for God’s existence; and a section on divine power provides a tentative defense of occasionalism as well as an analysis of omnipotence designed to avoid many of the standard counterexamples. The last four chapters address topics bearing on philosophical theology. They include an objection to theories of atonement that are inconsistent with perfect love and forgiveness, an interpretation of the liturgical present tense, a critique of the Doomsday Argument for personal immortality, and a comparison of substance dualism with medieval hylomorphism.

Commonsensism takes common-sense 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.

In these replies, I respond to critical comments on my book (Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition, Oxford 2021) from Julia Smith, Louis Doulas, Bill Lycan, and Matthias Steup, who (along with me) contributed to a symposium on that book for this journal. I discuss the following topics (among others), all in the context of my commonsense response to radical skepticism: epistemic intuitions, evidence, disagreement, philosophical pessimism, epistemic modesty, inference to the best explanation, theoretical virtues, particularism, methodism, epistemic circularity, and higher-level requirements on epistemic justification.

In this précis of Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition (Oxford 2021), I highlight the book’s main lines of argument and provide an overview of each of the book’s three parts. I explain how: part I identifies the best kind of argument for radical skepticism and objects to one of the two main ways of responding to it; part II presents my version of the other main way of responding to that skeptical argument (a version that relies heavily on epistemic intuition); and part III defends epistemic intuition (and, thereby, my response to radical skepticism) from several important objections.

This volume presents a dozen essays by prominent contemporary epistemologists providing a careful examination and critical evaluation of traditional epistemic internalism. The guiding principle of this doctrine is not to accommodate our commonsense nonskeptical views about the rationality of our ordinary beliefs, but to emphasize the need for philosophical or intellectual assurance that our ordinary beliefs (perceptual and otherwise) are true. The essays focus on what traditional internalism has to say about the following three topics: the nature of non-inferentially justified belief, the nature of inferentially justified belief, and the best way to respond to skepticism. The end product is a volume containing many probing objections to traditional internalism, pushing its proponents to provide creative new defenses if they want this old-fashioned view to survive in the modern world.

One thing all forms of foundationalism have in common is that they hold that a belief can be justified noninferentially–i.e., that its justification need not depend on its being inferred from some other justified (or unjustified) belief. In some recent publications, Peter Klein argues that in virtue of having this feature, all forms of foundationalism are infected with an unacceptable arbitrariness that makes it irrational to be a practicing foundationalist. In this paper, I will explain why his objections to foundationalism fail.

Epistemic Justification illuminates in a deep way some core issues in contemporary epistemology. Its two authors disagree sharply about the nature of epistemic justification: both are foundationalists but whereas BonJour is a staunch defender of a traditional version of internalist foundationalism, Sosa argues for an externalist virtue reliabilism. In spite of their differences they speak the same language and employ the same rigorous standards for philosophical interchange. They most assuredly do not talk past each other. In part because of this, but also in part because of the philosophical experience and insightfulness of the authors, we very quickly get to the topic at the heart of their disagreement: the question whether justification requires the subject to be aware of what her belief has going for it. BonJour says yes and Sosa says no. Both recognize that there are difficulties to be faced on either side of the debate. The great value of this book lies in the persuasiveness with which the authors press these difficulties and the vigor with which they resist them—something that is all the more impressive given their focus on introspective beliefs, the grounding of which is significantly more difficult to think and write clearly about than is the grounding of perceptual beliefs. Indeed, it is largely because of this careful discussion of the justification of introspective belief that the exchange is so rewarding.

Despite its recent prominence in the epistemological literature, the internalism-externalism debate is mired in serious confusion. I present a new account of the IE debate, one which fits well with the more entrenched views on the IE distinction and illuminates the fundamental issues on which internalists and externalists disagree. I argue that the debate should be construed in terms of warrant and not, as is usual, in terms of epistemic justification. And I note that there is an internal condition that many externalists think is necessary for warrant. That condition is the no-defeater condition which is satisfied by S's belief B if and only if S does not believe B is defeated. I conclude that internalism is the view that at least one internal condition other than NDC is necessary for warrant and that externalism is the denial of internalism. Strong externalists think that no internal conditions are necessary for warrant; moderate externalists allow that NDC is. ;Then, because of the central role played by NDC in my account of the IE debate, I develop a theory of defeat. I argue that defeat is connected with the absence of a highly subjective sort of rationality and that defeaters, like reasons, can be experiences as well as beliefs. I also explain how the internal sort of defeat I focus on is connected with the external sort that plays a role in defeasibility accounts of knowledge. ;I conclude by defending moderate externalism. I first give reasons for thinking that an internal version of NDC is necessary for warrant; this is enough to show that strong externalism is false. Then I argue that the most plausible defense of internalism--that access to the ground of one's belief is necessary for warrant--fails: either the access to grounds in question is not sufficiently internalistic or it is not necessary for warrant.

This paper argues that commonsense responses to radical skepticism can provide helpful lessons for religious epistemology—in particular, for thinking about how best to defend, and respond to, religious skepticism. Section 1 briefly summarizes of some of the main elements of the Reid-inspired epistemic-intuition-based commonsense response to radical skepticism developed in my 2021 book, "Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition" and highlights the role (in our thinking about radical skepticism) of epistemic intuitions understood as seemings about epistemic value in much the same way that moral intuitions are seemings about moral value. Sections 2 and 3 identify five important lessons that can be drawn from the position presented in that book, apply them to religious epistemology, and explain how they can help us to account for our religious disagreements without implausibly disparaging the rationality of those with whom we disagree. Section 4 addresses some potential concerns about Sections 2 and 3.

Foundationalism, a theory about the structure of epistemic justification, is often criticized for excesses that are unnecessary additions to it. But when correctly understood, its main tenets (featuring most prominently the claim that there can be properly basic beliefs) are virtually undeniable. The best way to get at the heart of foundationalism is to focus not on Descartes but on Aristotle and his famous regress argument. Section I unpacks that foundationalist argument. Section II addresses some objections to foundationalism. Section III considers how foundationalism bears on topics in the epistemology of theology—topics such as Reformed epistemology, natural theology, Biblical criticism, and post-foundationalism.

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.

Peter Klein has taken Aristotle’s regress argument for foundationalism as a point of departure for developing a view he calls ‘infinitism’. In this paper, I offer a critique of Klein’s view. I argue for three main conclusions. First, Klein’s response to the regress argument for foundationalism is neither infinitism nor foundationalism but a distinct position I call the “unjustified foundations” view. Second, Klein’s “unjustified foundations” view is subject to some serious problems that make it inferior to foundationalism. Third, Klein’s objections to foundationalism fail to knock it from its place of superiority over the “unjustified foundations” view. Before defending these three conclusions in sections 3-5, I begin with an account of the regress argument for foundationalism in section 1 and with a brief presentation of Klein’s views in section 2.

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.

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.

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.

The key idea of Reformed Epistemology is that religious beliefs can be rational even if they are held noninferentially, without being based on arguments. The first part of this chapter clarifies in more detail what Reformed Epistemology says and how the view has evolved in three stages over the past forty years. The first stage was concerned with ground-clearing and initially characterizing the view; the second stage included book-length definitive statements of the view by William Alston and Alvin Plantinga. The third stage consists of 21st-century developments of the view, connecting it with, among other things, the cognitive science of religion, cognitively impacted experiences, epistemic intuition, and religious testimony. The second part of the chapter briefly presents three important objections to Reformed Epistemology—having to do with the need for independent confirmation, belief in the Great Pumpkin, and religious disagreement—and considers what can be said in response to them.

These replies to critical comments by Elijah Chudnoff, Noah Lemos, and Kevin McCain on my book Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition begin (after the Introduction) with Section 2, where I address a cluster of complaints from Chudnoff and McCain in connection with skepticism-supporting underdetermination principles. (These principles play a significant role in my portrayal of radical skepticism and in my Reidian response to it.) In Section 3, I reply to some objections from Lemos concerning a claim (from Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition) that I call ‘the Paradigm-case Thesis’. In Section 4, I respond to some concerns that McCain and Lemos raise in connection with my discussion of the rationality of seemings. Lastly, Section 5 covers a few remaining objections from McCain and Lemos having to do with Chisholm’s “Problem of the Criterion,” the comparative strength of seemings, and the challenge of identifying which seemings count as epistemic intuitions.

In this précis of Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition, I highlight the main lines of argument in the book and provide an outline of each of the book’s three parts. I explain how: Part I lays out an argument for radical skepticism and objects to one of the two main ways of responding to it; Part ii presents my version of the other main way of responding to that skeptical argument (a version that relies heavily on epistemic intuition); and Part iii defends epistemic intuition (and, thereby, my response to radical skepticism) from several important objections.