Religious Studies 35 (1):89-97 (1999)
In this response to Stenmark's critique of my views on rational theology, I concentrate on his distinction between the epistemic and the practical goals of religion and between descriptive and normative rational theology. With regard to the first distinction, I grant that truth claims play an essential role in religious belief and that it is indeed the task of philosophy of religion to decide on the meaning and rationality of such claims. I argue, however, that since such claims are internally related to the practical context of religious belief, their meaning and rationally cannot be determined apart from this context as is done in the kind of rational theology which Stenmark calls 'scientific'. With regard to the second distinction, I reject Stenmark's view that philosophy of religion has a descriptive task with reference to religion, and hence also his claim that I have put forward a false description of 'the religious language game'
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Pure Reason and Contemporary Philosophy of Religion: The Rational Striving in and for Truth. [REVIEW]Pamela Anderson - 2010 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 68 (1):95-106.
Mikael Stenmark, Rationality in Science, Religion and Everyday Life: A Critical Evaluation of Four Models of Rationality. [REVIEW]Michael H. Barnes - 1997 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (3):190-192.
Rationality in Science, Religion and Everyday Life.Mikael Stenmark - 1995 - University of Notre Dame Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #406,857 of 2,177,862 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,245 of 2,177,862 )
How can I increase my downloads?