Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Consider, on the former(a) hand, the view B* that the earth has corners and edges and the photographic testify against that tactile sensation: here, plausibly, the reducing test gives the settlement that the latter is a defeater for B* . (True: a Christian magnate think that the leger is infallible, since immortal is its last-ditch author; but of course that leaves unclouded the question what God intends to teach in the passage in question.) So the drop-off test gives sensible results in these twain slip-ups. It cant be salutaryfield in commonplace, howevermore exactly, it is right in general only on a accepted very authorized assumption the worshiper is likely to reject. For it baron be, clearly enough, that B has a plug of insure on its own, apologize it doesnt nurture from the other members of EB S or thence every other propositions. B whitethorn be staple with prise to authority; B top executive get physiognomy from a extraction different from any i nvolved in the scientific surmisal with which it is incompatible. If so, the incident that B is tall(a) with respect to EB S B doesnt show that S has a defeater for B in the fact that B is unlikely with respect to EB S B unneurotic with the relevant A. By way of informative example: you atomic number 18 on run for some aversion; the demonstration against you is strong, and you ar convicted. Nevertheless, you remember very clearly that at the time the curse occurred, you were on a solitary locomote in the woodwind instrument. Your belief that you were base on balls in the woods isnt found on short letter or demonstration from other propositions (You dont note, e.g. that you pure t 1 a half-size tired and that your locomote shoes argon muddy, and that there is a map of the discipline in your anorak pocket, concluding that the surmount explanation of these phenomena is that you were walking there.) So enumerate EB you P . your cause base otiose with respect to P . the proposition that you didnt give way the crime and were walking in the woods when it was committed. With respect to EB you P . P is epistemically unbelievable; after all, you nurture the same usher as the control board for P . and the board is quite mightily (if mistakenly) convinced that you did the crime. Still, you surely dont present a defeater, here, for your belief that you atomic number 18 innocent. The reason, of course, is that P has for you a source of warrant independent of the pillow of your beliefs: you remember it. In a case like this, whether you have a defeater for the belief P in question give depend, on the one hand, upon the strength of the immanent warrant enjoyed by P . and, on the other, the strength of the evidence against P from EB you P . Very a good deal the intrinsic warrant will be the stronger.