Who you could have known: divine hiddenness, epistemic counterfactuals, and the recalcitrant nature of natural theology
We argue there is a deep conflict in Paul Moser's work on divine hiddenness (DH). Moser's treatment of DH adopts a thesis we call SEEK: DH often results from failing to seek God on His terms. One way in which people err, according to Moser, is by trusting arguments of traditional natural t...
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 其他作者: | |
| 格式: | 電子 Article |
| 語言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | 載入...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| 出版: |
[2017]
|
| In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2017, 卷: 82, 發布: 3, Pages: 337-348 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Moser, Paul K. 1957-
/ 隱藏的上帝
/ 自然神學
|
| Further subjects: | B
Divine Hiddenness
B Analytic Theology B Gods B THEORY of knowledge (Religion) B Religious Epistemology B MOSER, Paul B Natural Theology |
| 在線閱讀: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| 總結: | We argue there is a deep conflict in Paul Moser's work on divine hiddenness (DH). Moser's treatment of DH adopts a thesis we call SEEK: DH often results from failing to seek God on His terms. One way in which people err, according to Moser, is by trusting arguments of traditional natural theology to lead to filial knowledge of God. We argue that Moser's SEEK thesis commits him to the counterfactual ACCESS: had the atheist sought after God in harmony with how God reveals himself, she would have had access to filial knowledge of God. By failing to incorporate arguments or propositional evidence for God's existence, Moser's account leaves the doubting seeker without any evidential reason to think that either SEEK or ACCESS is true. Without this rational motivation in place, the doubting seeker is unlikely to seek after God in the way ACCESS describes. We argue that natural theology provides an evidential epistemic aid to motivate persons to seek God the way ACCESS describes. Thus, Moser is mistaken. Such arguments can be evidentially helpful in coming to know God. In conclusion, we explain how our reply naturally fits how we form and maintain trusting interpersonal relationships with others. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8684 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11153-016-9580-3 |
