An Analysis Of Reasonable Religious Disagreements By Richard Feldman

In “Reasonable Religious Disagreements,” Richard Feldman posits that two reasonable peers cannot come to a reasonable disagreement. The premise of a “reasonable disagreement” has various conditions, in short being that the peers must be epistemic, and they must have shared all of their evidence pertaining to the argument. By this criteria, it is not plausible for two epistemic peers with access to the same body of evidence to ever reach reasonably different conclusions. However, a problem arises with the previously stated criteria when examining the point regarding full disclosure of evidence. When examining Feldman’s article from this perspective, it is possible that it may not be considered fully viable.
The matter of contention present with respect to the disclosure of evidence is conspicuous when considering the notion of full disclosure itself. The concept of fully sharing evidence …show more content…
He suggests that there will never be a case in which all evidence will be shared, making the problem obsolete. He then seems to modify the conditions to require that the evidence must be shared to the extent that is possible. He includes a scenario in which there is an argument between an atheist and a theist. Faith as a way of knowing is often deeply personal, meaning the likelihood of successfully sharing evidence regarding religion is highly improbable. This reveals a clear point of contention in which evidence cannot realistically be fully shared. Yet Feldman argues that in a case like this one, each party has special insight that the other party is aware of. However, solely the notion that the other party has information that one may not be able to comprehend is not a justification to believe that they are incorrect. Therefore, on the grounds of a reasonable disagreement, this could not conclude in both parties maintaining the belief that each side is