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...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Опубликовано: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2008
|
| В: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Год: 2008, Том: 64, Выпуск: 3, Страницы: 135-140 |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Belief
B Conceptual B Analogical B Vanstone B Love B Relationship B Hiddenness |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Электронный ресурс
|
| Итог: | 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 |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11153-008-9170-0 |