What derivations cannot do
I think that there is much about contemporary philosophy of religion that should change. Most importantly, philosophy of religion should be philosophy of religion, not merely philosophy of theism, or philosophy of Christianity, or philosophy of certain denominations of Christianity, or the like. Her...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2015]
|
| In: |
Religious studies
Jahr: 2015, Band: 51, Heft: 3, Seiten: 323-333 |
| normierte Schlagwort(-folgen): | B
Religionsphilosophie
/ Konzeption
|
| RelBib Classification: | AB Religionsphilosophie; Religionskritik; Atheismus |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Zusammenfassung: | I think that there is much about contemporary philosophy of religion that should change. Most importantly, philosophy of religion should be philosophy of religion, not merely philosophy of theism, or philosophy of Christianity, or philosophy of certain denominations of Christianity, or the like. Here, however, I shall complain about one fairly narrow aspect of contemporary philosophy of religion that really irks me: its obsession with derivations that have as their conclusion either the claim that God exists or the claim that God does not exist. I shall work myself up by degrees. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412515000256 |