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...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2008
|
| In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Jahr: 2008, Band: 64, Heft: 3, Seiten: 135-140 |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Belief
B Conceptual B Analogical B Vanstone B Love B Relationship B Hiddenness |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallele Ausgabe: | Elektronisch
|
| Zusammenfassung: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8684 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11153-008-9170-0 |