Works by Thomas D. Senor
44 found
Order:
1 filter applied
DisambiguationsDisambiguations:
| Thomas D. Senor [45] | Thomas David Senor [2] |
- Preserving preservationism: A reply to Lackey.Thomas D. Senor -2007 -Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1):199–208.
- The prima/ultima facie justification distinction in epistemology.Thomas D. Senor -1996 -Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56 (3):551-566.
- Internalistic foundationalism and the justification of memory belief.Thomas D. Senor -1993 -Synthese 94 (3):453 - 476.In this paper I argue that internalistic foundationalist theories of the justification of memory belief are inadequate. Taking a discussion of John Pollock as a starting point, I argue against any theory that requires a memory belief to be based on a phenomenal state in order to be justified. I then consider another version of internalistic foundationalism and claim that it, too, is open to important objections. Finally, I note that both varieties of foundationalism fail to account for the epistemic (...) status of our justified nonoccurrent beliefs, and hence are drastically incomplete. (shrink)
- Epistemological problems of memory.Thomas D. Senor -2008 -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- The Compositional Account of the Incarnation.Thomas D. Senor -2007 -Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):52-71.In a pair of recent articles, Brian Leftow and Eleonore Stump offer independent, although similar, accounts of the metaphysics of the Incarnation. Both believe that their Aquinas-inspired theories can offer solutions to the kind of Leibniz’s Law problems that can seem to threaten the logical possibility of this traditional Christian doctrine. In this paper, I’ll have a look at their compositional account of the nature of God incarnate. In the end, I believe their position can be seen to have unacceptable (...) philosophical and theological implications, and that is it inadequate to solve the Leibniz’s law problems that motivate it in the first place. (shrink)
- Critical Introduction to the Epistemology of Memory.Thomas D. Senor -2019 - New York: Bloomsbury.In this clear and up-to-date introduction, Thomas D. Senor lays the philosophical foundation needed to understand the justification of memory belief. This book explores traditional accounts of the justification of memory belief and examines the resources that prominent positions in contemporary epistemology have to offer theories of the memorial justification. Along the way, epistemic conservatism, evidentialism, foundationalism, phenomenal conservatism, reliabilism, and preservationism all feature. Study Questions and annotated Further Reading guides at the end of each chapter make this book ideal (...) for classroom use and independent study. Written in very clear prose, A Critical Introduction to the Epistemology of Memory is a valuable resource for students approaching epistemology for the first time or those looking to advance their understanding of a core area of philosophy. (shrink)
- On Privileging God's Moral Goodness.Thomas D. Senor -2006 -Faith and Philosophy 23 (4):409-422.According to Eric Funkhouser, omnipotence and necessary moral perfection (what Funkhouser calls "impeccability") are not compatible. Funkhouser gives two arguments for this claim. In this paper, I argue that neither of Funkhouser's arguments is sound. The traditional theist can reasonably claim that, contra Funkhouser, (i) there is no possible being who possesses all of God's attributes sans impeccability, and (ii) the fact that there are things that God cannot do does not entail that God lacks omnipotence. Armed with (i) and (...) (ii), the theist has all that is needed to refute Funkhouser's arguments. (shrink)
- Memory.Thomas D. Senor -2010 - In Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa & Matthias Steup,A companion to epistemology, second edition. Blackwell.
- God, Supernatural Kinds, and the Incarnation.Thomas D. Senor -1991 -Religious Studies 27 (3):353-370.Traditionally, the term ’God’ has been understood either as a proper name or as a description. However, according to a new view, the term God’ in a sentence like "Jesus Christ is God" functions as a kind term, much as the term ’tiger’ functions in the sentence "Tigger is a tiger." In this paper I examine the claim that divinity can be construed as a ’supernatural’ kind, developing the outlines of an account of the semantics of God’ along these lines, (...) and suggest that it might solve an important philosophical problem concerning the Incarnation. (shrink)
- Justified Belief and Demon Worlds.Thomas D. Senor -2013 -Res Philosophica 90 (2):203-214.The New Demon World Objection claims that reliabilist accounts of justification are mistaken because there are justified empirical beliefs at demon worlds— worlds at which the subjects are systematically deceived by a Cartesian demon. In this paper, I defend strongly verific (but not necessarily reliabilist) accounts of justification by claiming that there are two ways to construct a theory of justification: by analyzing our ordinary concept of justification or by taking justification to be a theoretic term defined by its role (...) in the theory of knowledge. The former route is not promising because of the splintered nature of our ordinary concept of justification—or perhaps because there is no single such concept. On the other hand, if justification is defined by the role it plays in the theory of knowledge, then there is good reason to think that justification must be strongly truth-conductive since the term was introduced by Edmund Gettier to play the primary role in converting true belief into knowledge. And if that is right, then there will be no justified empirical belief at demon worlds. The real lesson of the demon world is then turned on its head: justification does not supervene on what one shares with one’s deceived doppelganger. (shrink)
- The Incarnation.Thomas D. Senor -2007 - In Chad V. Meister & Paul Copan,Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion. New York: Routledge.
- Appearance and Explanation: Phenomenal Explanationism in Epistemology, written by Kevin McCain and Luca Moretti.Thomas D. Senor -2025 -International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 15 (1):73-81.
- On the Tenability of Brute Naturalism and the Implications of Brute Theism.Thomas D. Senor -2010 -Philosophia Christi 10 (2):273-280.Timothy O’Connor’s book Theism and Ultimate Explanation offers a defense of a new version of the cosmological argument. In his discussion, O’Connor argues against the coherence of a brute fact “explanation” of the universe and for the claim that the God of theism cannot be logically contingent. In this paper, I take issue with both of these arguments. Regarding the former, I claim that contrary to what O’Connor asserts, we have no good reason to prefer an account according to which (...) the universe is explained via a necessary being to that of a naturalist who thinks that the universe is contingent and ultimately unexplained. Regarding the latter, I argue that the possibility of a logically contingent God is fully consistent with traditional theism. (shrink)
- Divine Temporality and Creation Ex Nihilo.Thomas D. Senor -1993 -Faith and Philosophy 10 (1):86-92.
- Incarnation, Timelessness, and Leibniz's Law Problems.Thomas D. Senor -2001 - In Gregory E. Ganssle & David M. Woodruff,God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature. New York, US: Oxford University Press.
- The Incarnation and the Trinity.Thomas D. Senor -1999 - In Michael J. Murray,Reason for the Hope Within. Eerdmans.
- Incarnation and Timeless.Thomas D. Senor -1990 -Faith and Philosophy 7 (2):149-164.In this paper I present and defend two arguments which purport to show that the doctrines of timelessness and the Incarnation are incompatible. An argument similar to the first argument I consider is briefly discussed by Stump and Kretzmann in their paper "Eternity." I argue that their treatment of this type of objection is inadequate. The second argument I present is, as far as I know, original; it depends on a certain subtlety in the doctrine of the Incarnation, viz., that (...) the Son took on or assumed a human nature. It seems that there is no way to understand what it is for the Son to take on a human nature that doesn’t entail his mutability; and mutability entails temporality. Thus, since Christ is said to take on a human nature, an orthodox Christology must maintain that the Son is temporal. I conclude by considering whether the Son’s temporality entails the temporality of the Godhead. (shrink)
- Perception, Evidence, and the Epistemology of Disagreement.Thomas D. Senor -manuscriptIn this paper I argue for a version of the Total Evidence view according to which the rational response to disagreement depends upon one's total evidence. I argue that perceptual evidence of a certain kind is significantly weightier than many other types of evidence, including testimonial. Furthermore, what is generally called "The Uniqueness Thesis" is actually a conflation of two distinct principles that I dub "Evidential Uniqueness" and "Rationality Uniqueness." The former principle is likely true but the latter almost certainly (...) false. Seeing why the Rationality Uniqueness fails opens the door to seeing how mutual reasonable disagreement is possible even among those who share the same evidence. (shrink)
- Dissatisfaction Theodicy and Punishment.Thomas D. Senor -2005 -Southwest Philosophy Review 21 (2):187-190.
- In Defense of Serious Externalism.Thomas D. Senor -2008 -Southwest Philosophy Review 24 (1):1-12.
- Two factor theories, meaning wholism and intentionalistic psychology: A reply to Fodor.Thomas D. Senor -1992 -Philosophical Psychology 5 (2):133-151.In the third chapter of his book Psychosemantics , Jerry A. Fodor argues that the truth of meaning holism (the thesis that the content of a psychological state is determined by the totality of that state's epistemic liaisons) would be fatal for intentionalistic psychology. This is because holism suggests that no two people are ever in the same intentional state, and so a psychological theory that generalizes over such states will be composed of generalizations which fail to generalize. Fodor then (...) sets out to show that there is no reason to believe in holism by arguing that its primary foundation (i.e. functional-role semantics), when properly understood (i.e. when construed as a two-factor theory of content), is demonstrably false. In this paper, I argue two claims. First, I try to show that Fodor has seriously misrepresented two-factor theories and that his arguments against his strawman do nothing to indicate the falsity of the genuine article. Second, I argue that if one accepts meaning holism in the form of a two-factor theory, there is no particular reason to think that one is hereby committed to the futility of intentionalistic psychology. In making this point, I make a brief excursion into the psychological literature during which I discuss the belief perseverance phenomenon, the encoding specificity hypothesis, and a problem in human deductive reasoning. My second argument leads to a discussion of how such a psychology could be developed even if no two people are ever in the same intentional state. (shrink)
- Harman, negative coherentism, and the problem of ongoing justification.Thomas D. Senor -1995 -Philosophia 24 (3-4):271-294.
- Should Cubs Fans Be Committed? What Bleacher Bums Have to Teach Us about the Nature of Faith.Thomas D. Senor -2004 - In Eric Bronson,Baseball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Batter's Box. Open Court.
- Why There is No Justified Belief at Demon Worlds.Thomas D. Senor -manuscriptThe New Demon World Objection claims that reliabilist accounts of justification are mistaken because there are justified empirical beliefs at demon worlds—worlds at which the subjects are systematically deceived by a Cartesian demon. In this paper, I defend strongly verific (but not necessarily reliabilist) accounts of justification by claiming that there are two ways to construct a theory of justification: by analyzing our ordinary concept of justification or by taking justification to be a theoretic term defined by its role in (...) the theory of knowledge. The former route is not promising because of the splintered nature of our ordinary concept of justification—or perhaps because there is no single such concept. On the other hand, if justification is defined by the role it plays in the theory of knowledge, then there is good reason to think that justification must be strongly truth-conductive since the term was introduced by Edmund Gettier to play the primary role in converting true belief into knowledge. And if that is right, then there will be no justified empirical belief at demon worlds. The real lesson of the demon world is then turned on its head: justification does not supervene on what one shares with one’s deceived doppelganger. (shrink)
- Subjects of Experience.Thomas D. Senor -2003 -Philosophical Review 112 (3):416-419.Subjects of Experience is as ambitious as it is contrary to the spirit of most of contemporary analytic metaphysics and philosophy of mind. The reader needs a scorecard to keep track of all the currently unfashionable positions that Lowe adopts in this courageous little book. While the work ranges broadly over many topics, Lowe’s account of the self is at its core, and will be the focus of this review. However, it should be noted that one of the virtues of (...) Subjects of Experience is its broad perspective. In addition to the book’s central discussion of the self, there are chapters on mental causation, perception, action, self-knowledge, and language, thought and imagination. (shrink)
- The real presence of an eternal God.Thomas D. Senor -2009 - In Kevin Timpe,Metaphysics and God: Essays in Honor of Eleonore Stump. New York: Routledge.
- Trusting Lucy: Believing the Incredible.Thomas D. Senor -2005 - In Gregory Bassham & Jerry L. Walls,The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy: The Lion, the Witch, and the Worldview. Open Court.
- The Knowledge-As-Perception Account of Knowledge.Thomas D. Senor -2016 -Journal of Philosophical Research 41 (9999):91-109.William Alston once argued that justification is not necessary for knowledge. He was convinced of this because he thought that, in cases of clear perception, one could come to know that P even if one’s justification for believing P was defeated. The idea is that the epistemic strength of clear perception is sufficient to provide knowledge even where justification is lacking; perceiving (and believing) that P is sufficient for knowing that P. In this paper, I explore a claim about knowledge (...) that is the opposite side of the coin from Alston’s position: clear perception (with belief) that P is necessary for knowledge. Taking my cue from John Locke, I examine the plausibility of a theory of knowledge that distinguishes justified true unGettiered belief that P from knowing that P. Although I don’t fully advocate this position, I argue that it has significant plausibility, and that the initially troubling consequences of the account are not as problematic as one might have suspected. (shrink)
- Skeptical Theism, CORNEA, and Common Sense Epistemology.Thomas D. Senor -2014 - In Justin P. McBrayer & Daniel Howard-Snyder,The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Wiley. pp. 426–443.The problem of evil is best understood as an instance of what I call “the problem of defeated expectations.” These problems arise for theism when the world we experience does not conform to what we would expect to find in a world created and sustained by a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. In this chapter, I explore skeptical theism, which is an approach to the evidential problem of evil that argues that, at least with respect to certain kinds (...) of evils we find, we simply should not have any firm expectation about whether the world would contain them or whether we would know why God permits them if it does. I focus on a particular variety of skeptical theism that makes use of a general epistemic principle to rebut the evidential problem of evil and defend it against criticisms. (shrink)No categories
- Still More Advice to Christian Philosophers.Thomas D. Senor -2015 -Logoi 2:06-08.Export citation
Bookmark - Common Core/Diversity Dilemma, Agatheism and the Epistemology of Religious Belief.Thomas D. Senor -2016 -European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 8 (4):213--226.The essay “The Common-Core/Diversity Dilemma: Revisions of Humean Thought, New Empirical Research, and the Limits of Rational Religious Belief‘ is a bold argument for the irrationality of “first-order‘ religious belief. However, unlike those associated with “New Atheism,‘ the paper’s authors Branden Thornhill-Miller and Peter Millican claim both that there are prospects for rational “second-order‘ religious belief and that religious belief and practice can play a positive role in human life. In response to Thornhill-Miller and Millican, Janusz Salamon has argued that (...) first- order religious belief can be rational, although not via the methods that philosophers who have typically defended the reasonability of faith have appealed to. Both papers are fascinating discussions of the epistemology of religious belief in general, and of the rationality of such commitment in light of modern science and religious disagreement in particular. In this paper, I’ll object to a few points made in each essay and argue that neither paper provides good reason to be dubious about the religious belief being rational along traditional lines. (shrink)
- Constitution, persons, and the resurrection of the dead.Thomas D. Senor -2020 - In Luis R. G. Oliveira & Kevin Corcoran,Common Sense Metaphysics: Essays in Honor of Lynne Rudder Baker. New York, NY: Routledge.Export citation Bookmark
- Introduction and Remembrance.Thomas D. Senor -2016 -Journal of Philosophical Research 41 (9999):7-9.No categories
- Stephen C. Layman: Philosophical approaches to atonement, incarnation, and the trinity: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, ix and 191 pp, $100.00.Thomas D. Senor -2017 -International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82 (3):349-354.
- Selected papers in honor of William P. Alston.Thomas D. Senor,Michael R. DePaul &William P. Alston (eds.) -2016 - Charlottesville, Virginia: Philosophy Documentation Center.William P. Alston was the founding editor of the Philosophy Research Archives and a president of the American Philosophical Association. This special volume was prepared in honor and recognition of Alston's many contributions to philosophy as author, editor, teacher, and mentor. Publication of this volume was made possible by his colleagues and the philosophy department at Syracuse University.
- The Uniqueness Argument and Religious Rationality Pluralism.Thomas D. Senor -2018 -Philosophia Christi 20 (1):241-252.In this paper, I offer a defense of what I dub “religious rationality pluralism”—that is, that people of various religions can be rational in holding a variety of religious perspectives. I distinguish two arguments against this position: the Uniqueness argument and the Disagreement argument. The aims of this essay are to argue that the Uniqueness thesis is ambiguous between two readings, that while one version of the thesis is quite plausible, it cannot be successfully used to argue against rationality pluralism, (...) and the version of the thesis that would support the argument is false. (shrink)
- A Critical Review of Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief. [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -2002 -International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (3):389-396.
- Review of Paul K. Moser,The Evidence for God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined. [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -2011 -Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2011 (1).
- Review of Matthias Steup (ed.),Knowledge, Truth, and Duty: Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue. [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -2002 -Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2002 (3).
- On the Nature and Existence of God. [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -1995 -Faith and Philosophy 12 (3):432-434.
- Warrant: The Current DebateWarrant and Proper Function. [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -1995 -Review of Metaphysics 48 (4):925-925.Whereas the first book is designed to demonstrate the inadequacy of other accounts, the second volume is supposed to tell us the sober truth about warrant. In a nutshell, Plantinga's theory is that a belief has warrant to the extent that it is produced by a cognitive process that is truth-aimed, functioning properly, operating in an appropriate environment, and reliable. Furthermore, for any two warranted beliefs, the belief which is held most strongly is the most warranted. Plantinga is aware that, (...) stated this baldly, his theory raises as many questions as it answers. He spends the better part of two chapters attempting to put flesh on this skeletal account. (shrink)
- Bread or stone? [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -2014 -The Philosophers' Magazine 66:125-126.No categories
- Review of J.L. Schellenberg's Human Reason and the Hiddenness of God. [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -1995 -Canadian Philosophical Reviews (I):63-65.Export citation Bookmark
- Review of Warrant: The Current Debate and Warrant and Proper Function. [REVIEW]Thomas D. Senor -1995 -Review of Metaphysics:925-26.Export citation Bookmark
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
 Email |  RSS feed |
Editorial team
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-54b44b69b7-k24bk uwo