I gave my negative review of The Predicament of Belief last night, but there are a few things I did like out of it, including some their discussion of doubt and belief, even if I reject their starting assumption of the need for a rational justification. Here is a good, and helpful, paragraph on epistemic levels. There is nothing new here (James, Quine, etc. already told you this), but it is put well:
These questions are a reminder that our epistemic "levels" are really just convenient points along a continuum and that, for any individual believer, the location of any particular claim along that continuum is subject to revision in light of new arguments, new experiences, and new discoveries. One can say with some confidence, at any particular moment, which claims appear to be better justified than others, but one must also acknowledge the ongoing religious and theoretical attraction of claims that one cannot, at the moment, find fully convincing. The upshot is a necessary humility and an openness to the claims of the tradition--and the criticisms of those outside it--that, in our view, belong to the essence of what is traditionally known as a life of faith.
Comments