enchment, dogmatism, or fundamentalism. These attitudes are characterized by an unwillingness to assimilate evidence against one's view and are both epistemically and socially dangerous; religious epistemology must surely strive to eliminate rather than accommodate them. I have two responses. One is that these attitudes only accompany the most extreme forms of epistemic commitment, so tolerating commitment does not entail tolerating them too. Indeed, most of us are epistemically committed, for example to certain ethical beliefs, but this does not mean that we would not change them given enough evidence that they are mistaken. Second, my intended audience includes the entrenched, dogmatic, and fundamentalist, though is not exhausted by them (cf. Dormandy, forthcoming). If I can convince believers of any stripe that religious disagreement contains epistemic benefits, then, even if they are only willing to countenance small epistemic adjustments, this is far better than nothing.iv Religious disagreement could issue in drastic belief revision, but it need not. For the sake of fostering what benefits we can, we must not expect interlocutors to cede more, epistemically, than they are prepared to. So although the epistemic-potential claim is inspired by the philosophy of science, I will not be assuming that the parties to a religious disagreement take a neutral, scholarly attitude toward their belief systems – on the contrary. 3 Religious belief systems and disagreement A core concern of religious epistemology is epistemically 'central' religious beliefs, such as 'God exists'. But this narrow focus ignores the array of other elements of a belief system, including more peripheral beliefs and things other than beliefs, that can be fruitfully disagreed over (Dormandy, 2018b). No wonder, then, that committed believers might be wary of religious disagreement. I will thus begin by zooming out to a broader picture of the objects of religious disagreement. At the same time, I will lay some cognitive-psychological groundwork f