Reply to Aijaz and Weidler on Hiddenness
In this brief reply I argue that criticisms of the hiddenness argument recently published in this journal by Imran Aijaz and Markus Weidler are without force. As will be shown, their critique of my conceptual version of the argument misses the mark by missing crucial distinctions. Their critique of...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2008
|
| In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2008, Volume: 64, Issue: 3, Pages: 135-140 |
| Further subjects: | B
Belief
B Conceptual B Analogical B Vanstone B Love B Relationship B Hiddenness |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electronic
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1821419308 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20221110052734.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 221110s2008 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11153-008-9170-0 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1821419308 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1821419308 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 0 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Schellenberg, J. L. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reply to Aijaz and Weidler on Hiddenness |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2008 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In this brief reply I argue that criticisms of the hiddenness argument recently published in this journal by Imran Aijaz and Markus Weidler are without force. As will be shown, their critique of my conceptual version of the argument misses the mark by missing crucial distinctions. Their critique of my analogical version of the argument misunderstands that argument and also misapplies the work of W. H. Vanstone. And their critique of my view that belief is necessary for a certain kind of relationship with God overlooks both some central features of that kind of relationship and some good reasons for not accepting acceptance or anything similarly nonbelieving as a substitute for belief in this context. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Love | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Belief | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Vanstone | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Relationship | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Analogical | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Conceptual | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hiddenness | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t International journal for philosophy of religion |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1970 |g 64(2008), 3, Seite 135-140 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320442098 |w (DE-600)2005049-5 |w (DE-576)103746927 |x 1572-8684 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:64 |g year:2008 |g number:3 |g pages:135-140 |
| 776 | |i Erscheint auch als |n elektronische Ausgabe |w (DE-627)1646896491 |k Electronic | ||
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270224 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-008-9170-0 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 64 |j 2008 |e 3 |h 135-140 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4208223316 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1821419308 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20221110052734 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 221110||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-09-28#C134B010DA25C2AAC7B8FF634E7623D5471D6900 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270224 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| REL | |a 1 | ||
| SUB | |a REL | ||