Fully Informed Reasonable Disagreement and Tradition Based Perspectivalism

Apparently, people who are aware of the relevant facts and experiences

in a belief forming situation, sometimes reasonably disagree about

whether to believe and why. This study argues that such disagreements

are possible, and that some purportedly fully informed reasonable

disagreements are genuine, including cases involving disagreement about

which beliefs about God are reasonably taken to be properly basic, given

the facts of religious diversity and cases in which phenomenologically

similar religious experiences properly ground a variety of religious

beliefs. Drawing on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, it also argues that

Tradition-Based Perspectivalism - roughly, the view that foundational

beliefs about what is reasonable to believe and why, are tradition-based

and perspectival in nature, originating in and appropriately grounded

only from the perspective of some tradition of inquiry or other - is

true, and that its truth provides additional support for the claim that

fully informed reasonable disagreement actually occurs.