Abstract :
In this paper I evaluate Brian Zamulinski’s recent attempt to rebut anargument to the conclusion that having any kind of religious faith violates a moralduty. I agree with Zamulinski that the argument is unsound, but I disagree on whereit goes wrong. I criticize Zamulinski’s alternative construal of Christian faith asexistential commitment to fundamental assumptions. It does not follow that weshould accept the moral argument against religious faith, for at least two reasons.First, Zamulinski’s Cliffordian ethics of belief is defective in several regards. Second,the truth of doxastic involuntarism and the possibility of doxastic excuse conditionscan be used to demonstrate that the argument is unconvincing
