In “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”, Rowe defines the term friendly atheism as the idea that an atheist can believe “that some theists are rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists”. He explains that friendly atheism becomes self-contradictory when each party knows both sides of the issue and still finds the other side to be rationally justified in their views. This idea aligns with Feldman’s conclusion in “Reasonable Religious Disagreements” which states that “epistemic peers cannot reasonably conclude that both they and those with whom they disagree are reasonable in their beliefs”. I agree with the conclusion drawn by these two authors however I recognize the potential limitation. This limitation being the amount of information that each party can share. Presenting information is not the same as actually going through an experience that might have led to your view on a particular issue. Thus a party cannot be completely informed of the opposing party’s evidence as Feldman describes as “a modest skeptical alternative”.
I definitely agree that presenting information is not the same as explaining or reliving an experience. I think that both Rowe and Feldman’s idea on that are correct and they do have valid points. The rationality behind their arguments are valid. I do think that past experiences and already set in beliefs do make you not want to believe the other person’s perspective and that you can’t naturally let their reasoning be justified if you have a different view.
Going off of what Julia said, I think Feldman made this point in his section titled “Different Starting Points.” Experiences can affect the point at which we “start” to develop conclusions about things such as religion. This also contributes to Feldman’s idea of there being no such thing as a “reasonable disagreement” about religion.
I think that in discussing the different starting points that people have the people in disagreement could begin to examine how reasonable both of their starting points even if they cannot experience the other. They may ultimately gain a better understanding of the other’s private evidence even if it’s not a perfect sharing.