My "Ideas of the Century" article in issue 50 of the Philosophers' Magazine is now online. The century is young, but the literature on disagreement has been extremely interesting. What should it mean when you discover that someone just as intelligent and well-informed and unbiased as you takes a different stand on some factual question? Standard answer: not much. You're free to disagree, but should do so respectfully. The question is what sense that makes. Maybe what you really ought to do is become agnostic on the question at hand. But wait--your argument is the one you find convincing. Should you really yield? Here's the literature I refer to:
Richard Feldman, "Reasonable Religious Disagreement"
Thomas Kelly, "The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement"
David Christensen, "Disagreement as Evidence"
Richard Feldman and Ted Warfield, Disagreement (OUP, coming out October 6)
Here's the review of 36 Arguments for the Existence of God I mentioned in the article--because early on there's a hilarious scene lampooning academic disagreement.