Baker Hitch

P (FACTS/theism) = low

P (FACTS/naturalism) = non low

• Naturalism - there is nothing supernatural 

• Says naturalism predicts the facts fairly strong 

Can predict which people will believe in God vs not believe in God 

Mutual Epistemic Dependence

in many subject areas, we depend on others to know what's true 

A learned from B

• B learned from C

•C Learned from D

Anything much beyond simple observation, we had to learn From other people

great values achieved from us being mutually epistemically dependent

• Teachers- give testimony on what's true

• Baker Hitch - sense perception won't tell you full truth

2 Ways what Baker Hitch says falls short/ Weaknesses of MED argument 

1 - It seems that God could give us all the values of ME without being MED- Specifically about God

it being valuable doesn’t give reason as to why we have it

2. Wer’e taught things about God from MED - not accessible to everyone

•  some people won't be able to hear it/ have wrong idea of God

  • Miss out on chance to be saved 

Weakness of MED 1 - It seems that God could give us all the values of ME without being MED- Specifically about God

• Usually if you wanna learn math → math teacher - can teach you individually 

  • For religion -  God Could individually reveal himself to all of us in private - wouldn't need outside source to learn abt God 

  • The fact that mutual ED is dependable/valuable doesn’t give reason to   doesn’t give reason to why we have it

Weakness of MED 2 - Wer’e taught things about God from MED - not accessible to everyone

Baker Hitch proposes

• God could have other ways of relating to people even it they dont know who he is

•  second chance after they die

Baker says 

• God preferred getting these Epistemological goods for us, than saving more people 
  
  

This doesn’t really sound like God though 

2 pts - Baker Hitch - MED - lacks

1. Doesn’t really say why MED has to specifically apply to religion

2.  MED is so valuable that God would allow millions of people to go to hell - rath

Belief in God

 very distributed along space + time

• along ethnic/ racial faultlines 

Naturalism- negative proposition- (nothing supernatural/no God) 

• Positive everything part nature or nothing that’s not part of nature

• Not right kind of proposition to predict truth in God - too general 

P (FACTS/naturalism) = Non-low

• Argument fails -  needs there to be probability there and there isn't

2 Ways- naturalism

• Natural world - with no beliefs in God 

•  Dead universe - no one believes in God 

• Intelligent life involved- 3 different ways from us 

  • Natural world - with everyone believing in God 

Everyone’s brain constantly manifesting visions of God  Much better @ producing arguments for God’s existence  Much more susceptible for arguments about God

Arguments posed by Theists - for religious experience

Religious Experience

 experience as if of a religiously significant item 

• Common 

• All experiences like this leave you with some content to be communicated

Religious experience examples: 

every Sunday

• pentecostal churches - spelling in tounges 

• Clearly a religious experience- no content communicated
  
  

John Weston - Protestant 

• “I found my heart strangely warmed” 

Might be person 

• Virgin mary 

5 Ways You Can Come to Have Religious Experiences 

1. Ordinary Experience of ordinary public objects

2. Experience of non-ordinary pubic objects

3. Non public abjects via ordinary sensations

4. Non public objects via non ordinary sensations

5. Non public Objects via no sensations