ABSTRACT
In the last two chapters I argued that the view that a practice is logically dependent on the truth of a proposition said to be logically prior and independent of it is unintelligible. This leads to an attitude in contemporary philosophy of religion that prides itself on what it takes to be toughmindedness. It leads to a demand to settle the fact of the matter, or, at least, to try to, no matter what the matter being discussed amounts to. For example, it is said, we ought to be able to settle the question whether God exists, whether Jesus is his Son, whether we have souls, and whether we are going to live after death.
