What derivations cannot do
I think that there is much about contemporary philosophy of religion that should change. Most importantly, philosophy of religion should be philosophy of religion, not merely philosophy of theism, or philosophy of Christianity, or philosophy of certain denominations of Christianity, or the like. Her...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publié: |
[2015]
|
| Dans: |
Religious studies
Année: 2015, Volume: 51, Numéro: 3, Pages: 323-333 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Philosophie des religions
/ Conception
|
| Classifications IxTheo: | AB Philosophie de la religion |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Maison d'édition) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | I think that there is much about contemporary philosophy of religion that should change. Most importantly, philosophy of religion should be philosophy of religion, not merely philosophy of theism, or philosophy of Christianity, or philosophy of certain denominations of Christianity, or the like. Here, however, I shall complain about one fairly narrow aspect of contemporary philosophy of religion that really irks me: its obsession with derivations that have as their conclusion either the claim that God exists or the claim that God does not exist. I shall work myself up by degrees. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412515000256 |
