Rationalist atheology

Atheology, accurately defined by Alvin Plantinga, offers reasons why god's existence is implausible. Skeptically reasoning that theological arguments for god fail to make their case is one way of leaving supernaturalism in an implausible condition. This 'rationalist' atheology appeals...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Shook, John R. 1966- (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2015
Dans: International journal for philosophy of religion
Année: 2015, Volume: 78, Numéro: 3, Pages: 329-348
Sujets non-standardisés:B Rationalism
B Theology
B Atheism
B Theodicy
B Plantinga, Alvin
B Sufficient Reason
B Logic
B Atheology
Accès en ligne: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Résumé:Atheology, accurately defined by Alvin Plantinga, offers reasons why god's existence is implausible. Skeptically reasoning that theological arguments for god fail to make their case is one way of leaving supernaturalism in an implausible condition. This 'rationalist' atheology appeals to logical standards to point out fallacies and other sorts of inferential gaps. Beyond that methodological marker, few shared tactics characterize atheists and agnostics stalking theological targets. If unbelief be grounded on reason, let atheology start from a theological stronghold: the principle of sufficient reason, a cornerstone of rationality. Seven rules, corollaries to that principle, are enough to show how theological arguments for god repeatedly contravene rationality by perpetuating mysteries, contradictions, begging of questions, pseudo-explanations, and the like. None of these complaints are new, nor has theology been unaware of them. Disorganized atheology has, so far, allowed theology to appear to answer them. Five major arguments for god are systematically analyzed and refuted using these seven rules of rationality, as a preliminary exercise illustrating this re-organized and re-focused rationalist atheology.
ISSN:1572-8684
Contient:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-014-9498-6