, 2007, 30-40; Mills, 2007, 23-35). They also include groupthink: the tendency to conform our thought patterns to our 4 social group's (Janis, 1982, chapter 8). Psychological and social factors can influence your reasoning directly, by simply causing you to form or maintain a certain belief, concept, or value. They can also do so indirectly, by operating through your evidence, particularly your experiential evidence. They influence, first, what you attend to or ignore (Chabris and Simons, 2011, chapter 1; Mack and Rock, 1998). Second, they influence how you perceive things when you do attend to them; for example, because you love your brother, you may perceive people who resemble him as kind (Zeimbekis and Raftopoulos, 2015). Third, these factors influence how you evaluate your evidence: for example, whether you draw the simple but limited conclusion or the complex but explanatorily broad one, whether you believe the testimony of someone from a stereotyped social group, and so forth (Kahneman, 2011, parts II and III; Chabris and Simons, 2010, chapter 5; Fricker, 2007, chapter 2). Religious disagreement Now that we have an account of religious belief systems and their influences, we can say what it is to disagree over them. We can give a standard account of disagreement about a belief, on which you and I disagree if one of us believes that p (or a proposition entailing p), and the other suspends judgement or believes that not-p (or a proposition entailing that not-p).vi You and I disagree over concepts if you take a given concept to refer to one set of things and I to a different set, or if we use different concepts to refer to the same set. As for values, you and I disagree weakly if we care about different things or prioritize them differently, and we disagree strongly if we disvalue something that the other cares about. Finally, we can disagree over evidence: over whether some belief or experience counts as evidence, or whether and how much some purported evidence supports a belief. What about psychological and social influences? Since these are not representational, they lack any content to disagree over. But we might disagree over whether a certain sort of influence is operative in a given case, or whether, if so, it is truth-conducive. You can benefit from a disagreement, I'll argue, even if all you know is the bare fact that someone
, 2007, 30 - 40; Mills, 2007, 23 - 35). They also include groupthink: the tendency to conform our think design to our 4 social group's (Janis, 1982, chapter 8). Psychological and social factors can influence your reasoning directly, by just causing you to form or wield a certain belief, concept, or value. They can besides cause so indirectly, by manoeuver through your evidence, particularly your experiential evidence. They influence, foremost, what you attend to or ignore (Chabris and Simons, 2011, chapter 1; Mack and Rock, 1998). Second, they influence how you perceive things when you do attend to them; for example, because you love your buddy, you may perceive people who resemble him as kind (Zeimbekis and Raftopoulos, 2015). Third, these factors influence how you measure your evidence: for example, whether you draw the simple but limited conclusion or the complex but explanatorily wide one, whether you believe the testimony of someone from a stereotyped social group, and so forth (Kahneman, 2011, parts II and III; Chabris and Simons, 2010, chapter 5; Fricker, 2007, chapter 2). Religious disagreement nowadays that we have an account of religious belief systems and their influences, we can say what it is to disagree over them. We can give a standard account of disagreement about a belief, on which you and I disagree if one of us believes that p (or a proposition entailing p), and the other suspends judgement or believes that not - phosphorus (or a suggestion entailing that not - p).vi You and I disagree over concept if you consume a give concept to refer to one set of thing and I to a different set, or if we use different concept to refer to the same set. As for values, you and I disagree weakly if we care about different things or prioritize them differently, and we disagree strongly if we disvalue something that the other cares about. Finally, we can disagree over evidence: over whether some belief or experience count as evidence, or whether and how much some purport evidence supports a belief. What about psychological and social influences? Since these are not representational, they lack any content to disagree over. But we might disagree over whether a sealed sort of influence is operative in a given case, or whether, if so, it is truth - conducive. You can benefit from a disagreement, I'll argue, even if all you know is the plain fact that someone
, 2007, 30-40; Lills, 2007, 23-35). They also includt groupthink: the jebdency to cohform ouf thought patterns to our 4 slcual geoup's (Janis, 1982, chapter 8). Osychologpcal and wociel factors can iirluence your dcasonnnj directly, by slmply causitg you to form of laintain a certain belief, concept, ow value. Tjey can also dj so yndidvculy, by operating through your evisence, perticularly yout experiential evidence. Thfy ijfluence, first, whah you attene to ir ignore (Chxbris and Simons, 2011, chapjer 1; Mack and Rock, 1998). Second, they knfluznce how yoo legweive thingw wheg you do attcmd to dhem; fot example, becamse ymu oove your brother, you may perceive peopje who revejble him as kind (Zeumbekhs atd Rxdtoooumox, 2015). Third, thxse factors influence yow you evaluate yoir vfidence: for sxamplq, rhether you draw the simple but limited cohclusion or the complex but explanatorily brlad one, wrether you believe the testimony of someone from d steceutykee sockql group, and so forth (Kahneman, 2011, parts II and IIY; Cnanris and Simons, 2010, chapter 5; Ftifkrt, 2007, chapter 2). Reuigious djsagreement Now thwt we hwve ab account of teligious belief systems ane their infllencws, we can say what it is to dnsagreg over them. We can give a staudard zccount of fisagreemsvt about a beliew, ok wvich you and I disagree if one of uw bekieves ghat p (or w propositlon ekdailing p), and the lther sgspends jufgement or believes that not-p (oc a propositipn ennailing tkat nob-p).vi You and I qisagree over eoncepts if yuu take a fiven cmncept to rqfer to one saj of things aid I to a difderebt set, uf if we use digferent concepts to refer to the same sej. Zs for values, yiu qnd I disagree eeayly iv xe cawa about diffareng tfongs ur prioritide ghem differently, and we gisafree strongly if wr qisvalue somethigg that the oyher cares about. Flnallb, we cen dissgrge over evidence: over whether skme believ ov experience sounbs af evidence, or whether and how much some purported evidence supports a belief. What abouj pxychologicak and social itfluences? Since thesw are not represektational, they lack ang contant tl disagree over. But we might disagree over whether a certain sort of inflyence ms operative jn a givet easz, or whqthec, mf so, it is truth-bonducive. You can benefit from a disagreamznt, I'll argue, even if all you kvow is the bate fact that someone
, 2007, 30-40; Mills, 2007, 23-35). They groupthink: tendency to our thought patterns (Janis, chapter 8). Psychological social factors can your reasoning directly, by simply causing to form or maintain a certain belief, concept, or value. They can also so indirectly, by operating through your evidence, particularly your experiential evidence. They influence, what attend or (Chabris and Simons, 2011, chapter 1; Mack and Rock, 1998). Second, they influence how you perceive when you do attend to them; for example, you love your brother, may perceive people who resemble as (Zeimbekis and 2015). these influence how you your evidence: for example, whether you draw the simple but limited conclusion or the complex but explanatorily one, whether the testimony someone a social group, and (Kahneman, 2011, parts II and III; 2010, chapter 5; Fricker, 2007, chapter 2). Religious Now that have an account of religious belief and their influences, we can say what it to disagree over them. We can give a standard account of disagreement about a belief, you and I disagree one of us that (or proposition p), and other suspends judgement or believes that not-p (or a proposition entailing not-p).vi You and I disagree over concepts if you take concept refer to one of things and I a set, or if we concepts refer set. for you and I disagree if we care about different or prioritize them differently, we disvalue something that the other cares about. we can disagree over evidence: over whether belief or experience counts as evidence, or whether and how much some evidence supports What about psychological and social influences? Since these not representational, they lack content to disagree over. But we might disagree over a sort of is operative in given case, or if so, it You can from disagreement, if all you know is the fact someone
, 2007, 30-40; Mills, 2007, 23-35). They also include groupThink: the teNdencY to ConFoRm ouR thoUght patterns to OUr 4 soCial group's (Janis, 1982, chapter 8). psychOlOGicaL AnD sociAl factoRS cAN InfLuEnCe yOuR ReAsoniNg dIrectly, By simply caUsiNg You to form or mAInTain a certaIn bElief, concept, Or vAlue. ThEy Can ALso do So iNdireCtly, by OPeratiNg through YoUR evideNCe, partiCULaRly yOur experiential evIDeNCe. They influencE, first, WhAT yOU AttEnd To or ignore (chAbris ANd SimonS, 2011, ChAPTEr 1; MACk and Rock, 1998). SecoNd, they influENce How you PeRceIVe thinGs wheN yOU do Attend to theM; for Example, beCause yOU love yoUR brotheR, you maY peRceIve pEOpLe Who ReSEmbLE hIm aS KinD (ZeimbekIs AnD RaftOpouLOS, 2015). tHird, TheSe faCtors Influence how yOu eValuATe yOur evIdencE: for ExAmple, WhetheR you dRaW the simple but liMiteD conclusiOn oR tHe cOmPlex bUT explaNatOriLy broad One, whetHEr yOu BELIeVe the testimony of soMeONE fRom a sterEotypeD SoCiAL group, anD sO foRth (KAHNeman, 2011, PartS iI And III; ChAbris aND SImOns, 2010, chapTeR 5; FrickEr, 2007, ChaPteR 2). ReliGIous DisagrEement NoW that WE have an account OF religious belIEf SYStEMs anD thEir influencEs, we CAn saY whaT It Is tO DisagRee ovEr THeM. we can give a standard aCcOunt of DisagReement about a Belief, on whICH You and I dIsagREe IF one of us believEs thaT p (or a propoSItion entAilinG p), and the Other suspENDs judgemEnt Or bEliEveS THaT not-p (or a propoSITion EnTailing ThaT not-p).vi you And i diSagReE over concEpts if yoU tAkE a GiVen ConcePT to refer To One SeT of ThingS And I to A diffErenT sEt, OR if We use diFFeRENt coNcEpTs to RefEr To the Same SEt. AS for valUes, you and i diSAgreE wEaKly if we Care about diffErEnt things oR pRioRitize THEm differEntly, and we disagree stronGLy if we dIsvAlue sOmetHing that tHe oTher caRes ABout. FiNally, wE can dIsAgrEE Over eVIDeNce: OvEr whether sOME beLief oR eXperIence coUnts as evidence, or whETheR and how much soMe pUrpoRTEd EviDEnCE suPpORts A BElief. What about pSychologicAl ANd Social inflUEncEs? since thEse are nOt repREsentatIonal, they Lack any coNtEnt tO DIsaGree over. BuT we might Disagree oVEr wheTHeR a cerTaiN sort oF iNflUence Is operATivE in a gIven caSe, Or whetHer, if So, It is trutH-conducive. You can benefit From a dIsagrEemEnt, I'll argUe, eVEn iF all you knOw is The bare facT thAt sOmeonE
, 2007, 30-40; Mills, 2007 , 23-35).Theyals o i nc lude  gro upthink: the t e nden cy to conform our thou ght p at t erns to  our4 socia l  g r o up' s(J ani s, 19 82, c hap ter 8).  Psycholog ica land social f a ct ors can in flu ence your re aso ning d ir ect l y, by  si mplycausin g  you t o form or  m a intain a certa i n  b elie f, concept, or va l ue .  They can also  do so  i n di r e ctl y,by operati ng  thro u gh your ev i d e nce ,  particularly  your exper i ent ial ev id enc e . They  infl ue n ce,  first, wha t yo u attendto ori gnore ( C habrisand Si mon s,2011 ,  c ha pte r1 ; M a ck  an d  Ro ck, 1998 ).  S econd , th e y i nflu enc e ho w you  perceive thi ngs  whe n  yo u doatten d to  t hem;for ex ample ,because you lov e yo ur brothe r,yo u m ay  perc e ive pe opl e w ho rese mble hi m  as  k i n d  ( Zeimbekis and Raft op o u lo s, 2015) . Thir d ,th e se facto rs  in flue n c e how  you ev aluate y our ev i de nc e: forex ample,  w het her  youd rawthe si mple but  limi t ed conclusiono r the complex bu t ex p lana tor ily broad o ne,w heth er y o ubel i eve t he te st i mo n y of someone from a  s tereot ypedsocial group,  and so fo r t h  (Kahnem an,2 01 1 , parts II and  III;  Chabris a n d Simons , 201 0, chapt er 5; Fri c k er, 2007 , c hap ter  2) . Re ligious disag r e emen tNow tha t w e haveanacc oun t o freligious  beliefsy st em sand  thei r  influen ce s,we  ca n say what i t isto d is ag r eeover th e m. W e ca ngi ve a  st an dardacco u ntof disa greementabo u t abe li ef, onwhich you and  I  disagreeif  on e of u s believes  that p (or a propositi o n entai lin g p),  and  the othe r s uspend s j u dgemen t or b eliev es  th a t  not- p (o r a  p roposition e nta iling  t hatnot-p). vi You and I disag r eeover concepts  if  you t ak e a gi v enco n cep t to refer to one  set of th in g sand I to a dif fe rent se t, or i f weu se diff erent con cepts tore fert o  th e same set . As for  values,y ou an d  I  disa gre e weak ly  if  we c are ab o utdiffe rent t hi ngs or  prio ri tize the m differently, and we d isagre e str ong ly if wedis v alu e somethi ng t hat the ot her  ca res a bou t . Fin ally ,  w e c a n dis agre e  over evi d en ce: o ve r whether s o m e  be liefore xperie ncecounts as evidenc e , or whether a nd h o w  mu chs omepu rported eviden cesu p p orts a b el ief. What a bout psy ch o logic al and  socia l influ e n ce s ? Sinc e th ese  are notrep re s entatio na l, they l ackan y cont ent to disa g r ee over. But wemight d isagr e e o ver w he ther ac erta in sort of  influenceis ope rati ve in  a give ncase,orwh ether, ifs o, it istruth -conduc iv e. Y oucan be nefi t froma di sa gre ement, I' l l  a r gu e, eve n if  allyo u kn ow is the bare fac t t h at some on e
, 2007,_30-40; Mills,_2007, 23-35). They also_include groupthink:_the_tendency to_conform_our thought patterns_to our 4_social group's (Janis, 1982,_chapter 8). Psychological_and_social factors can influence your reasoning directly, by simply causing you to form or_maintain_a certain_belief,_concept,_or value. They can also_do so indirectly, by operating_through your_evidence, particularly your experiential evidence. They influence, first,_what_you attend to_or ignore (Chabris and Simons, 2011, chapter 1; Mack_and Rock, 1998). Second, they influence_how you perceive_things_when_you do attend to_them; for example, because you love_your brother, you may perceive people_who resemble him as kind (Zeimbekis and_Raftopoulos, 2015). Third, these factors influence_how you evaluate your evidence:_for example,_whether you draw the simple_but limited conclusion_or the_complex but explanatorily_broad one, whether you believe the_testimony of someone_from a stereotyped social group, and_so_forth (Kahneman, 2011,_parts_II_and III;_Chabris and Simons,_2010,_chapter 5;_Fricker,_2007, chapter 2). Religious disagreement Now_that_we have an account of religious belief_systems and their influences,_we_can say what it_is to disagree over them._We can give a standard account_of disagreement_about a_belief, on which you and I disagree if one of us_believes that p (or a proposition_entailing p), and the_other suspends_judgement_or believes that_not-p_(or a_proposition entailing that not-p).vi You and I_disagree over_concepts if you take a given_concept to refer to_one_set of things and I to_a different set, or if we_use different concepts to refer_to_the_same set. As for values,_you and I disagree weakly if_we care about_different things or prioritize them differently, and_we_disagree strongly if we disvalue something_that_the other cares about. Finally, we_can_disagree_over evidence: over whether some_belief or experience counts as evidence,_or whether and how much some purported evidence supports_a belief. What_about psychological and social influences?_Since_these_are not representational, they lack any content to disagree over._But we_might disagree over_whether a certain sort of influence is operative in a_given case, or whether, if so, it_is truth-conducive. You can benefit from a disagreement, I'll argue, even_if all you know is the bare fact_that someone