Abstract
In this article it is argued that all religious beliefs to the effect that a specific god exists are prima facie implausible for two reasons: traditional sources of religious knowledge, or methods of religious investigation, such as revelations, prayer, and the interpretation of ‘signs’, have turned out to be unreliable, and religious beliefs are implausible given the background knowledge provided by modern science and scholarship. Four contemporary apologetic strategies for the religious believer, developed in detail by analytic philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga or Richard Swinburne, are discussed and criticized. It is further argued that the 18 objections against my argument for universal strong disjunctive atheism in ‘Atheïstisch manifest. De onredelijkheid van religie’ (Amsterdam, 1995, 2004), put forward by René van Woudenberg and Rik Peels (NTT 62/1:24-44), are inconclusive.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
