Notes for 10/30/2025
10/30/2025 [Philosophy Club every Tuesday at 5:00pm in CAS 436 ("The Cave")] [Challenge for today: Try to think of (and possibly ask) at least one question.] Can you be happy and not know it? Evidentialist challenge to (some) religious claims: Many religious claims are under-evidenced (the overall weight of evidence is either against or neutral regarding them). This suggests that the proper epistemic attitude should be at least suspension of judgment (if not rejection) regarding them (non-belief). (“Presumption of atheism” – non-belief should be the default position. The “burden of proof” for any non-trivial religious claim lies with the person advocating its acceptance.) “Epistemic obligation” can be understood in the two ways I distinguished strong and weak Evidentialism (see last class notes): Strong EO: Non-rational belief is culpable (condemnatory) (ethical culpability is most common, but not necessarily the o...