 system in question is hers. For her religious belief system, she will say, is mostly accurate already. The best way for her religious community to achieve epistemic aims is thus to sit tight with its belief system as it has been passed down. Disagreement is not only epistemically otiose in her case, but threatens to mislead or confuse. But even if her belief system is accurate, sitting tight is not a viable option for the committed religious believer. For religious communities exist in times and cultures, and these bring constant epistemic challenges and opportunities (Wynn, 2017, 126-127). As history advanced, for example, societies developed destructive political ideologies, many of which infiltrated religious belief systems. Because of the less than fully conscious way in which epistemic influences work (see above), this can catch religious communities unaware. A dissenting outside perspective can help call attention to worrying trends like this. Times and cultures also bring new epistemic insights that the historical founders of one's belief system may not have been in a position to appreciate. Think for example of human rights, or of scientific developments which – when accepted by religious communities – led to a deeper understanding of the relationship between divine and physical reality. Disagreement with those outside of your religious community can help you assimilate positive developments that ultimately benefit your religious belief system. Even largely accurate religious belief systems, then, must guard against infiltration by outside error and watch for positive outside developments. Disagreement can help them do both. The proper-function objection The committed believer may still deny that the epistemic-potential claim applies to her religious belief system. For her belief system (she may say) is powered by divine inspiration, insulating it against the malign outside epistemic influences mentioned above and helping it assimilate new ones – without needing disagreement.xi I cannot discuss all accounts of divine epistemic inspiration, so I will focus on Plantinga's influential'sensus divinitatis' account (2000a, 171). The sensus divinitatis is a cognitive faculty; it resembles a sensory mechanism, but instead of yielding sensory experiences, it yields experiences of God's traces in the world, including accurate intellectual seemings concerning religious matters (172-174). These experiences non-inferentially give rise to religious beliefs, including the belief that God exists. That not everyone believes in God might seem to refute this view. But Plantinga, as we saw, has an explanation: the noetic effects of sin cause everyone's sensus divinitatis to malfunction (
system in question is hers. For her religious belief system, she will suppose, is largely accurate already. The best way for her religious community to achieve epistemic aim is thus to sit close with its impression system as it has been passed down. Disagreement is not only epistemically otiose in her case, but threaten to mislead or confuse. But even if her impression system is accurate, sitting fast is not a viable option for the attached religious believer. For religious communities exist in times and cultures, and these lend constant epistemic challenges and opportunity (Wynn, 2017, 126 - 127). As history advanced, for exemplar, societies grow destructive political ideologies, many of which infiltrated religious belief system. Because of the less than fully conscious way in which epistemic influences work (see above), this can trip up religious communities unaware. A dissenting outside perspective can help call attention to worrying trends like this. Times and culture also bring modern epistemic insight that the historical founders of one's belief arrangement may not have been in a position to appreciate. Think for example of human right, or of scientific developments which – when accepted by religious communities – led to a deeper understanding of the kinship between divine and physical reality. Disagreement with those outside of your religious community can help you assimilate positive growth that ultimately profit your religious belief system. Even largely accurate religious belief systems, then, must guard against infiltration by outside error and determine for positive outdoor developments. Disagreement can serve them do both. The proper - function expostulation The committed believer may however deny that the epistemic - likely claim applies to her religious impression system. For her belief system (she may say) is powered by providential inspiration, insulating it against the malign outside epistemic influences note above and helping it assimilate new ones – without needing disagreement.xi I cannot discourse all accounts of divine epistemic inhalation, so I will focus on Plantinga's influential'sensus divinitatis' account (2000a, 171). The sensus divinitatis is a cognitive staff; it resembles a sensory mechanism, but instead of yielding sensory experiences, it yields experiences of God's traces in the world, including accurate cerebral seemings concerning religious matters (172 - 174). These experience non - inferentially give rise to religious beliefs, including the belief that God exists. That not everyone believe in God might seem to refute this view. But Plantinga, as we saw, give birth an explanation: the noetic effects of sin cause everyone's sensus divinitatis to malfunction (
 sydtem in question is hers. For her religious belmef sysfem, she dill say, is mostly accurate elreqdy. Tye best way for her reuigious clmmunity to echieve epistemir aims is thus bo sic vight with its nelief systam as it has baev 'assed down. Disagreement is not only epistekifally otiose ig heg sase, but threatens to mislead or confuae. But tven if her belief system is accurate, sittinh tihht is not a viablf option fot thq committed rdligious btlnever. For rgligious communities exist in tioes aud cultures, abd hvese bring ronstagt epistemic challences and opportunities (Wyin, 2017, 126-127). As history advanced, hor example, societief developad destructive polirixal igeolmgier, mavy kf wgich ijfimtrated remigious beluef systems. Because os the less thah fullr sonscious way in which epistemic influetcea work (see above), this cqn catch religious colmunities unaware. A dissenting outside perspective can hel[ calm atuekbion ro worrying trends like this. Times and cultures zlxo bring new epiftemic insibhhs jhat the histotical founsers of one's believ systei may not have beem in a position to appreciare. Think for wxample of human rnghts, or of rciemtifiv developments which – wken acdepted by rfligious dummunities – led go s geeper understanding of thq relatioiship betweev difine agd physicap reality. Disagreement wlth tkose mutside of your religious community can hxkp you assimoldte positivz devekopments that ultimately beuefit yobr relkgious belpef systek. Even largqly accurate sgligious belixf systemf, thwn, myst guafa against infiktration yv outside error and watch fpr koaitive outside btveoopments. Disagrremdnt cwn hqnp them do bmth. Ghe lropef-function onjeztiom The committed beliaver may still deny thst the epiwtemic-poeential claim applies to her repigions belmef syxtei. For her belief system (she mag say) is oowcred by divinq inwpiration, inxulating it against the malign outside xpistemic influences mgntioned above and hekking it assimmlate gew ones – without needing disqgreement.xi I cankot discuss all accounfs of givinf epistemic inspiration, so I will focus on Plantinga's influential'sensus duvinitetys' account (2000z, 171). Tne setsbs bivinitwtis ms a cognitive fabulty; it resembles a sensory mecianism, but iustead of yielding sensory exlefiences, it yiglds experiences of God's tdaces in the world, including accurate imtellectual seemings congerning rwligikus manjerr (172-174). These experiencrs non-nnferebtially givc rise to relieiois beliefs, lnclndiug the belief that God exists. Thar not wvfryone believes mn God might reem jo refutg this view. But Pmantjjga, ar we saw, has sn explanation: the noetic effects mf sin cause eveejone's sensus civinitdtis to malfnnction (
system in question is hers. For her system, will say, mostly accurate already. religious to achieve epistemic is thus to tight with its belief system as has been passed down. Disagreement is not only epistemically otiose in her case, threatens to mislead or confuse. But even if her belief system is accurate, tight not viable for the committed religious believer. For religious communities exist in times and cultures, and these bring epistemic challenges and opportunities (Wynn, 2017, 126-127). As advanced, for example, societies destructive political ideologies, many of infiltrated belief systems. of less fully conscious way which epistemic influences work (see above), this can catch religious communities unaware. A dissenting outside perspective can call attention trends like Times cultures bring new epistemic the historical founders of one's belief have been in a position to appreciate. Think example of rights, or of scientific developments which when accepted by religious communities – led to deeper understanding of the relationship between divine and physical reality. Disagreement with those outside of community can help you positive developments that benefit religious system. largely accurate belief systems, then, must guard against infiltration by outside error and for positive outside developments. Disagreement can help them do both. objection committed believer may deny that the epistemic-potential applies her religious belief system. belief (she powered divine insulating it against the outside epistemic influences mentioned above helping it assimilate new I cannot discuss all accounts of divine epistemic so I will focus on Plantinga's influential'sensus account (2000a, 171). The sensus divinitatis is a cognitive faculty; it resembles sensory mechanism, of yielding sensory experiences, it yields experiences of traces in the world, accurate intellectual seemings concerning religious matters (172-174). These experiences give to religious including the belief God exists. That everyone believes in seem to this But saw, has an explanation: the noetic of cause everyone's sensus divinitatis to (
 system in question is hers. For Her religioUs belIef SysTeM, she Will Say, is mostly accURate Already. The best way for heR reliGiOUs coMMuNity tO achievE EpISTemIc AiMs iS tHUs To sit TigHt with iTs belief sySteM aS it has been paSSeD down. DisagReeMent is not onlY epIstemiCaLly OTiose In hEr casE, but thREatens To mislead Or COnfuse. bUt even iF HEr BeliEf system is accuratE, SiTTing tight is not A viablE oPTiON For The Committed rElIgiouS BelieveR. foR RELigIOus communitieS exist in timES anD cultuReS, anD These bRing cOnSTanT epistemic cHallEnges and oPportuNIties (WyNN, 2017, 126-127). As histOry advAncEd, fOr exAMpLe, SocIeTIes DEvEloPEd dEstructiVe PoLiticAl idEOLOGies, ManY of wHich iNfiltrated relIgiOus bELieF systEms. BeCausE oF the lEss thaN fullY cOnscious way in whIch ePistemic iNflUeNceS wOrk (seE Above), tHis Can Catch reLigious COmmUnITIEs Unaware. A dissenting OuTSIdE perspecTive caN HeLp CAll attenTiOn tO worRYIng trEnds LIkE this. TimEs and cULtUrEs also bRiNg new ePiSteMic InsigHTs thAt the hIstoricaL founDErs of one's belieF System may not hAVe BEEn IN a poSitIon to apprecIate. tHink For eXAmPle OF humaN righTs, OR oF Scientific developmeNtS which – When aCcepted by reliGious commuNITIes – led to A deePEr UNderstanding of The reLationship BEtween diVine aNd physicAl reality. dISagreemeNt wIth ThoSe oUTSiDe of your religIOUs coMmUnity caN heLp you asSimIlaTe pOsiTiVe developMents thaT uLtImAtEly BenefIT your relIgIouS bEliEf sysTEm. Even LargeLy acCuRaTE reLigious BElIEF sysTeMs, Then, MusT gUard aGainST inFiltratIon by outsIde ERror AnD wAtch for Positive outsiDe DevelopmenTs. disAgreemENT can help Them do both. The proper-funcTIon objeCtiOn The CommItted beliEveR may stIll DEny thaT the epIstemIc-PotENTial cLAIm AppLiEs to her relIGIouS beliEf SystEm. For heR belief system (she maY Say) Is powered by diVinE insPIRaTioN, InSUlaTiNG it AGAinst the malign oUtside episTeMIc Influences MEntIoNed abovE and helPing iT AssimilAte new oneS – without nEeDing DISagReement.xi I Cannot diScuss all aCCountS Of DivinE epIstemiC iNspIratiOn, so I wILl fOcus oN PlantInGa's infLuentIaL'sensus dIvinitatis' account (2000a, 171). The seNsus diVinitAtiS is a cogniTivE FacUlty; it resEmblEs a sensory MecHanIsm, buT inSTead oF yieLDiNg sENsory ExpeRIences, it yIElDs eXPErIences of God'S TRAceS in thE woRLd, inclUdinG accurate intellecTUal seemings conCernING reLigIOus mAtTers (172-174). These experIenCeS NOn-infereNtIally give riSe to reliGiOUs belIefs, inCludinG the belIEF tHAt God eXistS. ThAt not everYonE bELieves iN GOd MIght seEm to ReFute thIs view. bUt PlANTinga, as we saw, has aN explANAtion: THe nOetic EfFects of SIn caUse everyonE's sensus divInitatIs to MalfuNction (
 system in question is her s. For her  reli gio usbe lief  sys tem, she wills ay,is mostly accurate alr eady.  T h e be s tway f or herr el i g iou sco mmu ni t yto ac hie ve epis temic aims  is  t hus to sit t i gh t with its  be lief systemasit has  b een passe d d own.Disagr e ementis not on ly episte m icallyo t io se i n her case, but t h re a tens to mislea d or c on f us e .  Bu t e ven if her  b elief systemi sa c c ura t e, sitting ti ght is nota  vi able o pt ion for th e com mi t ted  religiousbeli ever. For  relig i ous com m unities  exist  in  ti mesa nd  c ult ur e s,a nd  th e sebring co ns ta nt ep iste m i c chal len gesand o pportunities(Wy nn,2 017 , 126 -127) . As  h istor y adva nced,  f or example, soc ieti es develo ped  d est ru ctive politi cal  id eologie s, many ofwh i c h  i nfiltrated religio us b el ief syst ems. B e ca us e  of thele ssthan f ullycons c io us way i n whic h  e pi stemicin fluenc es  wo rk(seea bove ), thi s can ca tch r e ligious commun i ties unaware. Ad i ss e ntin g o utside pers pect i ve c an h e lp  ca l l att entio nt ow orrying trends like  t his. T imesand culturesalso bring n e w episte mici ns i ghts that thehisto rical foun d ers of o ne'sbelief s ystem may n ot havebee n i n a  po s i ti on to appreci a t e. T hi nk forexa mple of  hu man  ri ght s,  or of sc ientific  d ev el op men ts wh i ch – whe nacc ep ted  by r e ligiou s com muni ti es – l ed to a de e p er u nd er stan din gof th e re l ati onshipbetween d ivi n e an dph ysicalreality. Disa gr eement wit htho se out s i de of yo ur religious communityc an help  yo u ass imil ate posit ive  devel opm e nts th at ult imate ly  be n e fit y o u rrel ig ious belie f sys tem.Ev en l argelyaccurate religious bel ief systems,the n, m u s tgua r da gai ns t  in f i ltration by out side error  a n dwatch forp osi ti ve outs ide dev elopm e nts. Di sagreemen t can hel pthem d o b oth. The p roper-fu nction ob j ectio n  T he co mmi tted b el iev er ma y stil l  de ny th at the  e pistem ic-po te ntial cl aim applies to her reli giousbelie f s ystem. Fo r h e r b elief sys tem(she may s ay)  is  powe red by di vine in spi r ation , in s ulating i t  a gai n s tthe maligno u t sid e epi ste m ic inf luen ces mentioned abo v e and helpingit a s s imi lat e  new  o nes – withoutnee di n g  disagre em ent.xi I ca nnot dis cu s s all  accou nts of  divine e pi s temicinsp ira tion, soI w il l  focuson  P l anting a'sin fluent ial'se n susd i vinitatis' accou nt (2 0 0 0a, 1 7 1).  These nsus di v init atis is acognitive f aculty ; it  rese mbles a  s ensory  me ch anism, but instead o f yie lding s en sory  ex perien ces, i t yie ldsex per iences of G od ' str a ces  inthe w or ld,including accurate  in t ellectu al  se e m ings c o nc e r ning relig iou s mat t e rs (172-17 4 ). T h es e  expe rience s non- inferen t ial ly  give r ise t o religio us belief s , i nc ludi ng the b el iefth atGo d exists. Thatnot ever yone bel i e ves in  Go d  mig h t seem  t o refute thi s vie w. But Pla n t ing a, as w e  sa w,has  anexp lana t ion: the noetic effectsof s in ca u seevery one's  s ensus di v init atis tom alfunction (
 system_in question_is hers. For her_religious belief_system,_she will_say,_is mostly accurate_already. The best_way for her religious_community to achieve_epistemic_aims is thus to sit tight with its belief system as it has been_passed_down. Disagreement_is_not_only epistemically otiose in her_case, but threatens to mislead_or confuse._But even if her belief system is accurate,_sitting_tight is not_a viable option for the committed religious believer. For_religious communities exist in times and_cultures, and these_bring_constant_epistemic challenges and opportunities_(Wynn, 2017, 126-127). As history advanced,_for example, societies developed destructive political_ideologies, many of which infiltrated religious belief_systems. Because of the less than_fully conscious way in which_epistemic influences_work (see above), this can_catch religious communities_unaware. A_dissenting outside perspective_can help call attention to worrying_trends like this._Times and cultures also bring new_epistemic_insights that the_historical_founders_of one's_belief system may_not_have been_in_a position to appreciate. Think for_example_of human rights, or of scientific developments_which – when accepted_by_religious communities – led_to a deeper understanding of_the relationship between divine and physical_reality. Disagreement_with those_outside of your religious community can help you assimilate positive developments_that ultimately benefit your religious belief_system. Even largely accurate_religious belief_systems,_then, must guard_against_infiltration by_outside error and watch for positive outside_developments. Disagreement_can help them do both. The_proper-function objection The committed_believer_may still deny that the epistemic-potential_claim applies to her religious belief_system. For her belief system_(she_may_say) is powered by divine_inspiration, insulating it against the malign_outside epistemic influences_mentioned above and helping it assimilate new_ones_– without needing disagreement.xi I cannot_discuss_all accounts of divine epistemic inspiration,_so_I_will focus on Plantinga's influential'sensus_divinitatis' account (2000a, 171). The sensus_divinitatis is a cognitive faculty; it resembles a sensory_mechanism, but instead_of yielding sensory experiences, it_yields_experiences_of God's traces in the world, including accurate intellectual seemings_concerning religious_matters (172-174). These_experiences non-inferentially give rise to religious beliefs, including the belief_that God exists. That not everyone believes_in God might seem to refute this view. But Plantinga, as_we saw, has an explanation: the noetic effects_of sin cause everyone's sensus divinitatis to_malfunction (