ABSTRACT
Citizens should be fallibilistic concerning arguments that they offer within political deliberation. They should recognize that they might be mistaken, and be ready to consider challenges to their arguments, holding those arguments open to critical scrutiny by their compatriots. Can religious citizens comply with this requirement, when offering religious political arguments? We might think not, given that such arguments often appeal to what religious citizens see as authoritative sources of absolute truth. This chapter argues that, despite this fact, religious citizens can comply with the requirement of fallibilism. Importantly, this is true even if they are unwilling to be fallibilistic about their core religious convictions, because the requirement should be understood as permitting this. The argument of this chapter clears one potential obstacle to establishing the broader contention that religious political arguments can positively contribute to political discussions concerning what policies will promote justice and the common good within a community of freedom.
