A Neglected Avenue in Contemporary Religious Apologetics: HENRY B. VEATCH

Religious Studies 13 (1):29-48 (1977)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

‘Apologetics’ is hardly a word to be used without apology in the present dispensation. And to speak of anything like a neglected avenue or opportunity in religious apologetics might almost seem as if one were speaking of an opportunity in just such an enterprise as no self-respecting philosopher would nowadays wish even to be associated with. For all of their avoidance of the term, however, the thing designated by the term is something with which not a few philosophers of recent years have been not above dabbling in, albeit usually under other names and other labels. After all, religious language has now come to be recognized as not just a legitimate, but even a fashionable object of philosophic attention. And a concern with religious language has often brought with it a concern with religious attitudes, religious behaviour, religious argumentation — yes, even to the point of occasionally becoming a concern with the very religious realities themselves that religious language, religious attitudes, religious behaviour, and religious argument are presumably all about. True, religious realities in this sense are to today's garden of philosophy pretty much what the tree of knowledge once was to the garden of Eden. In fact, one even suspects that there could be a serpent about somewhere, for cases have been reported of an occasional philosopher Adam or philosopher Eve having yielded to temptation: a consideration of God-talk has been known to lead to cautious admissions that such talk might be cognitively meaningful; a consideration of God-experiences to the admission that such experiences under certain circumstances could be veridical; or, even more rarely, a consideration of proofs for God's existence to the gingerly admission that at least some of these proofs might just possibly be valid. Needless to say, though, such a yielding to temptation on the part of some few contemporary philosophers, while it may not have led to any manifest sewing together of fig-leaves, has certainly brought with it the danger, if not always the reality, of a supercilious expulsion from the glorious Eden of contemporary professional philosophy.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Religious Language. [REVIEW]Michael Scott - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):505-515.
Religious language.Michael Scott - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):505-515.
Religion Without Speech?Lance Ashdown - 2003 - Ars Disputandi 3.
The Evidential Force of Religious Experience.Davis Caroline Franks - 1989 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.
Religious naturalism and its rivals.Mikael Stenmark - 2013 - Religious Studies 49 (4):529-550.
Pluralism, Religious.Michael Barnes Norton - 2016 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Religious disagreement: internal and external. [REVIEW]Dennis Potter - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):21-31.
D. Z. Phillips on God and evil.John Hick - 2007 - Religious Studies 43 (4):433-441.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
32 (#487,332)

6 months
2 (#1,232,442)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references