Conciliationism as Epistemic Concession in Religious Peer Disagreement

Year 2025, Issue: 65, 1 - 15

Nesim Aslantatar

Abstract

This paper examines religious disagreements between epistemic peers—individuals with equal
cognitive capacities—focusing on the two dominant responses: conciliationism and steadfastness. While conciliationism advocates for a moderate attitude towards epistemic peers and revising one’s beliefs in case of disagreement, steadfastness argues that it is rational for an individual to maintain their current beliefs. I argue that conciliationism faces serious epistemic challenges, rendering it an unsustainable position. Building on a novel account of steadfastness, this study contends that retaining one’s belief in religious peer disagreement is rational if the following four conditions are met: (i) the believer’s evidence continues to support their belief within their interpretive and epistemic framework (independent justification); (ii) no genuine defeater undermines the belief either by rebutting it directly or undercutting the reliability of the evidence (absence of genuine defeat); (iii) the believer’s confidence remains above a rational threshold appropriate to the stakes of inquiry (confidence threshold);, and (iv) the believer holds a higher-order judgment affirming that their justification remains at least as strong as their peer’s (meta-belief endorsement). By integrating these conditions, the paper demonstrates that conciliationism (a) has a restrictive effects on
religious and philosophical inquiry, (b) is internally inconsistent, (c) carries the risk of widespread epistemic uncertainty by opening the way to skepticism, and finally (d) carries the risk of weakening or even eliminating the function of evidence. Consequently, this study argues that this revised steadfastness framework offers a more defensible and epistemically responsible alternative to conciliationism, preserving the integrity of religious, inquiry while upholding the demands of epistemic rationality.

Keywords

Philosophy of Religion , Religious Peer Disagreement , Epistemic Rationality , Epistemic Concession , Conciliationism , Steadfastness

Dini İhtilafta Epistemik Taviz Olarak Uzlaşımcılık

Abstract

Bu makale, eşit bilişsel kapasitelere sahip epistemik denkler arasındaki dini ihtilafları ele almakta ve bu ihtilaflara yönelik iki baskın yaklaşım olan uzlaşmacılık ve kararlılık görüşlerini incelenmektedir. Uzlaşımcılık çeşitli epistemik problemler barındırır ve ortaya çıkardığı şüpheci sonuçlara bağlı olarak rasyonel bir pozisyon olarak sürdürülebilir olup olmadığı tartışmalıdır. Kararlılık tutumuna dair yeni bir yaklaşım sunan bu çalışma, denk ihtilafında kişilerin inancını korumasının şu dört koşulun sağlanması şartıyla rasyonel olduğunu savunmaktadır: (i) bireyin elindeki kanıtların kendi epistemik çerçevesi çinde inancını desteklemeye devam etmesi (bağımsız gerekçelendirme); (ii) inancı doğrudan ürüten veya kanıtın güvenilirliğini zedeleyen ihtilaftan bağımsız bir çürütenin bulunmaması (hakiki çürüten eksikliği); (iii) bireyin inancına yönelik güveninin, ilgili konunun epistemik önemine uygun bir rasyonel değerin üzerinde kalması (güven eşiği); ve (iv) bireyin, kendi gerekçesinin denginin gerekçesinden en az onun kadar güçlü olduğuna dair meta bir yargıya sahip olması (ikinci dereceden inanca dayanan tasdik). Çalışmamız, bu ilkelerden haraketle uzlaşımcı yaklaşımın (a) araştırmayı kısıtlayıcı bir etki doğurduğunu, (b) kendisiyle tutarsız olduğunu, (c) şüpheciliğe kapı aralayarak geniş çaplı bir epistemik belirsizlik riski taşıdığını ve son olarak (d) kanıtın işlevini zayıflatma ve hatta ortadan kaldırma riski taşıdığını savunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma, sunduğumuz kararlılık yaklaşımının, uzlaşımcılığa kıyasla daha savunulabilir, tutarlı ve epistemik açıdan sorumlu bir alternatif sunduğunu; hem dini sorgulamanın özerkliğini hem de epistemik
rasyonalitenin gereklerini koruduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

Keywords

Din Felsefesi , Dini İhtilaf , Epistemik Rasyonalite , Epistemik Taviz , Uzlaşımcılık , Kararlılık

References

• Aslantatar, Nesim. “Evidence, Uncertainty, And Belief: A Critique of the Common Epistemic Grounds for Fideism and Agnosticism”. Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi 22/2 (2022), 813-842. https://doi.org/10.33415/daad.1107348
• Aslantatar, Nesim. Agnostisizm: Tanrı’nın Bilinemezliği Sorunu. Ankara: Elis Yayınları, 2023. Aslantatar, Nesim. “Does Agnosticism Have Positive Evidence”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 97 (2025), 263-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-025-09955-3
• Aslantatar, Nesim. “İhtilaf Epistemolojisi ve Meta Problemler”. Şırnak Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 36 (2025), 24-42. https://doi.org/10.35415/sirnakifd.1614806
• Bergmann, Michael. “Defeaters and Higher-Level Requirements”. The Philosophical Quarterly 55/220 (2005), 419-436.
• Bergmann, Michael. “Deontology and Defeat”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2000), 87-102.
• Bergmann, Michael. “Rational Disagreement after Full Disclosure”. Episteme 6/3 (2008), 336-352.
• Bogardus, Tomas. “A Vindication of the Equal Weight View”. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 6/3 (2009), 324-335.
• Carnap, Rudolf. “Testability and Meaning”. Philosophy of Science 3/4 (1936), 425-427.
• Christensen, David. “Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy”. Philosophy Compass 4/5 (2009), 756–767.
• Christensen, David. “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News”. The Philosophical Review 116 (2007), 187-217.
• Christensen, David. “Disagreement, Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism”. Philosopher’s Imprint 11/6 (2011), 1-21. Elga, Adam. “How to Disagree About How to Disagree”. Disagreement. ed. R. Feldman and T. Warfield. 175–186. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Elga, Adam. “Reflection and Disagreement”. Noûs 41/3 (2007), 478-502.
• Elgin, Catherine. “Persistent Disagreement”. Disagreement. ed. Richard Feldman and Ted A. Warfield. 53-68. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Elgin, Catherine. “Reasonable Disagreement”. Voicing Dissent: The Ethics and Epistemology of Making Disagreement Public. ed. Casey Rebecca Johnson. 10-21. New York: Routledge, 2018.
• Enoch, David. “Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement”. Mind 119/476 (2010), 953-997.
• Feldman, Richard. “Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement”. Epistemology Futures. ed. Stephen Hetherington. 216-236. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Feldman, Richard. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements”. Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life. ed. Louise Antony. 194-214. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Foley, Richard. Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• Frances, Bryan. “The Reflective Epistemic Renegade”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2010), 419-463.
• Graves, Shawn. “The Self-Undermining Objection in the Epistemology of Disagreement”. Faith and Philosophy 30/1 (2013), 93-106. James, William. “The Will to Believe”. Pragmatism and Other Writings. ed. Giles Gunn. 198-218. New York: Penguin Books, 2000. Kelly, Thomas. “Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence”. Disagreement. ed. Richard Feldman, Ted A. Warfield. 111-174. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kelly, Thomas. “Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence”. Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. ed. Alvin I. Goldman, Dennis Whitcomb. 183-217. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Kelly, Thomas. “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement”. Oxford Studies in Epistemology. ed. John Hawthorne, Tamar Gendler. 167-196. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Kornblith, Hilary. “Belief in the Face of Controversy”. Disagreement. ed. R. Feldman, T. Warfield. 29-52. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Kornblith, Hilary. “Is Philosophical Knowledge Possible?”. Disagreement and Skepticism. ed. Diego Machuca. 131-149. New York: Routledge, 2013. Kripke, Saul A. “On Two Paradoxes of Knowledge”. Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers 1. 27-51. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Kur’ân-ı Kerîm Meâli, çev. Halil Altuntaş-Muzaffer Şahin. Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Yayınları, 2009. Kütükcü, Elif. İhtilafın Epistemolojisi ve Dini Çeşitlilik. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, 2022. Lackey, Jennifer. “A Justificationist View of Disagreement’s Epistemic Significance”. Social Epistemology. ed. Adrian Haddock vd. 298–325. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lee, Matthew. “Conciliationism without Uniqueness”. Grazer Philosophische Studien 88/1 (2012), 161-188.
• Littlejohn, Clayton. “Disagreement and Defeat”. Disagreement and Skepticism. ed. Diego Machuca. 169-192. New York: Routledge, 2013. Lougheed, Kirk. “The Epistemic Value of Deep Disagreements”. Informal Logic 38/2 (2018), 263–292.
• Lougheed, Kirk. The Epistemic Benefits of Disagreement. Cham: Springer, 2020.
• Machuca, Diego E. “Conciliationism and the Menace of Scepticism”. Dialogue 54/3 (2015), 469–488.
• Mackie, John L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. New York: Penguin Books, 1977.
• Matheson, Jonathan. “Disagreement: Idealized and Everyday”. The Ethics of Belief: Individual and Social. ed. Jonathan Matheson ve Rico Vitz. 315-330. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
• Matheson, Jonathan. “The Case for Rational Uniqueness”. Logos and Episteme: An International Journal of Social Philosophy 6/3 (2011), 269–279.
• Matheson, Jonathon. The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
• O’Connor, Timothy. “Religious Pluralism”. Reason for the Hope Within. ed. Michael Murray. 165–181. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
• Pascal, Blaise. Pensées. Trans. A. J. Krailsheimer. London: Penguin Books, 1995.
• Pittard, John. “Resolute Conciliationism”. The Philosophical Quarterly 65/260 (2015), 442-463.
• Plantinga, Alvin. “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism”. The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity. ed. Philip Quinn and Kevin Meeker. 172–192. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pollock, John. “Defeasible Reasoning”. Cognitive Science 11 (1987), 481-518.
• Pollock, John. “The Structure of Epistemic Justification”. American Philosophical Quarterly 4 (1970), 62-78.
• Reining, Stefan. “On The Supposed Dilemma of Conciliationism”. Episteme 13/3 (2016), 305-328.
• Rosen, Gideon. “Nominalism, Naturalism, Epistemic Relativism”. Philosophical Perspectives 15 (2001), 69-91.
• Schoenfield, Miriam. “Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism is True and What it Tells us about Irrelevant Influences on Belief”. Nous 48/2 (2014), 193-218. Sosa, Ernest. “The Epistemology of Disagreement”. Social Epistemology. ed. Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar, Duncan Pritchard. 278–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Tanış, Abdulkadir. “Denklerin İhtilafı, Dinî İnanç ve Şüphecilik”. Artuklu Akademi 11/1 (2024), 15-31.
• Tanış, Abdulkadir. Pragmatik İman. Ankara: Episteme Yayınları, 2022.
• Thune, Michael. “Partial Defeaters’ and the Epistemology of Disagreement”. The Philosophical Quarterly 60 (2010), 369-370.
• Van Helden, Albert. “Galileo”. Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Accessed 20/02/2025. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei
• Van Inwagen, Peter. “It is Wrong, Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything Upon Insufficient Evidence”. Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today. ed. J. Jordan and D. Howard-Snyder. 137-153. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.
• Van Inwagen, Peter. “We’re Right. They’re Wrong”. Disagreement. ed. Ted Warfield, Richard Feldman. 10-29. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
• White, Roger. “Epistemic Permissiveness”. Philosophical Perspectives 19/1 (2005), 445-459.
• Yıldız, İbrahim. “Teleolojik Argüman’ın Bayes Teoremiyle İmtihanı: Wesley Salmon’un Argümanına İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme”. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 63/2 (2022), 1021-1038. https://doi.org/10.33227/auifd.1063244 Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. “Self-Trust and the Diversity of Religions”. Philosophic Exchange 36/1 (2006), 63-77.