Rationality Of Religious Belief Research Articles

God’s Nature and the Rationality of Religious Belief

God’s Nature and the Rationality of Religious Belief

Deciding to believe: The ethics and rationality of religious belief

Aujourd'hui, plusieurs attitudes concernant la foi religieuse sont possibles: l'atheisme, un theisme different de la tradition dont on peut etre issu, une fidelite a la tradition. Sur la question de l'ethique et de la rationalite de la foi religieuse, l'A. entend montrer que d'un point de vue moral, il est possible d'accepter les pretentions a la verite au-dela de ce que l'evidence garantit. Si la fonction des revendications religieuses est d'assurer une base pour l'engagement moral, les conditions enoncees par James pour une appreciation suprarationnelle de ces revendications sont remplies

Religious Pluralism and the Rationality of Religious Belief

Religious Pluralism and the Rationality of Religious Belief

Maritain, Post-Modern Epistemologies and the Rationality of Religious Belief

Maritain, Post-Modern Epistemologies and the Rationality of Religious Belief

Reviews

Book reviewed in this article: The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief By Michael C. Banner. Theology and the Justification of Faith. By Wentzel Van Huyssteen. Explanation from Physics to Theology. By Philip Clayton. Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning. By Nancey Murphy.

The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief. Michael C. Banner

<i>The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief</i>. Michael C. Banner

The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief

The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief

The justification of science and the rationality of religious belief

Part 1 The justification of science: Kuhn's challenge to the rationality of science - the structure of scientific revolutions, Kuhn's retreat, Kuhnian science-rational or irrational? in defence of rational realism - the argument for rational realism, Wittgenstein, Rorty, Davidson and the sense of truth, is realism the best explanation?. Part 2 The rationality of religious belief: does philosophy of religion rest on a mistake? - on justifying religion, the expressive theory and its defence, intellectualism-the theory of primeval stupidity, assessing the argument for the expressive theory, expressive or intellectualist?, the expressive theory and the facts, the case of religion faith and the religious adequacy of explanatory justification - an argument from the motive for faith, the nature of faith, religion and decisive adherence theism and inferring to the best explanation - an objection from the nature of explanation, Darwin and inferring to the best explanation, explanatory power and an objection to ad hocness, the place of simplicity the problem of evil and the philosophy of science - the possibility of evil, the plausibility of evil, anomalies, puzzles and the propriety of mystery.

Book Review: The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief

Book Review: The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief

BOOK REVIEWS

Journal Article BOOK REVIEWS Get access The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief. By Michael C. Banner Clarendon Press, 1990. 196 pages. $55.00. Holmes Rolston, III Holmes Rolston, III Colorado State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume LIX, Issue 2, Summer 1991, Pages 389–392, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/LIX.2.389 Published: 01 July 1991

The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief

The Justification of Science and the Rationality of Religious Belief

The Rationality of Religious Belief

The Rationality of Religious Belief

Penelhum on skeptics and fideists

Professor Penelhum has argued that there is a common error about the history of skepticism and that the exposure of this error would significantly improve our understanding of a current confusion in the philosophy of religion with regard to the issue of the rationality of religious beliefs. Penelhum considers certain contemporary philosophers of religion such as Plantinga skeptics because he reads Plantinga (for example) as arguing that religious beliefs are properly groundless in virtue of the fact that none of our beliefs have any ultimate grounds, and Penelhum argues that this sort of defense of religious belief is both limited and dangerous for religion. I argue that on the interpretation of ancient skepticism which Penelhum gives ancient skepticism is just what it has often been claimed to be: either practically untenable or incoherent or both. I show that in any case the confusion in philosophy of religion which Penelhum wants to sort out with the help of ancient skepticism is not one of which its alleged proponents are guilty. The views of Plantinga and others who take his line are more complex and powerful than Penelhum's presentation makes them seem; these views do not constitute an acceptance of skepticism but a denial of a certain sort of foundationalism. Contrary to Penelhum, then, I argue that ancient skepticism does not serve as a significant corrective for certain trends in contemporary philosophy of religion.