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...

全面介绍

Saved in:  
书目详细资料
主要作者: Schellenberg, J. L. (Author)
格式: 电子 文件
语言:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
载入...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
出版: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2008
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2008, 卷: 64, 发布: 3, Pages: 135-140
Further subjects:B Belief
B Conceptual
B Analogical
B Vanstone
B Love
B Relationship
B Hiddenness
在线阅读: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Parallel Edition:电子
实物特征
总结: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
Contains:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-008-9170-0