Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Hick's interpretation of religious pluralism.Bernard J. Verkamp - 1991 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30 (2):103 - 124.
    There is no question that Hick's theory rests upon multiple assumptions about a singular, transcendental grounding and the fundamental equality of the various religions that cannot be inductively verified beyond all doubt. That need not mean, however, that the “attractiveness” of his theory derives solely from the “peculiar charm” For the Wittgensteinian implications here, see again G. Loughlin, “Noumenon and Phenomena,” pp. 501–502. of supposing that the One and the Many are no more at odds in the realm of religion (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Orientational Pluralism in Religion.S. Mark Heim - 1996 - Faith and Philosophy 13 (2):201-215.
    Nicholas Rescher has advanced an account of philosophy which he calls orientational pluralism. It addresses the tension in philosophy between commitment to rational argument and the enduring lack of resolution of major issues. This article suggests that Rescher’s view can be fruitfully transposed into a discussion of religious pluralism, illuminating the status of theories about religious diversity and providing grounds both for recognizing the legitimacy of diverse religious convictions and making a consistent argument in favor of one’s own.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Teaching & Learning Guide for: The Epistemology of Religious Diversity in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion.Amir Dastmalchian - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (4):409-412.
  • Hick, pluralism and category mistake.Akbari Reza - 2009 - International Journal of Hekmat 1 (1):101-114.
    John Hick’s theory concerning plurality of religions is an ontologic pluralism according to which all religions are authentic ways for man to attain the "real an sich". Gods of religions are real as perceived and veridical hallucinations; while the “real an sich” has ineffable substantial and trans-categorical properties. Hick’s view suffers from several problems. As a second order analysis of religions, Hick’s view is not a correct one. To reject naturalism, it falls into an epistemological circle, where distinction between formal (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark