Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:09:27.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On not unnecessarily darkening the glass: a reply to Poston and Dougherty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2007

J. L. SCHELLENBERG
J. L. SCHELLENBERG
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy/Religious Studies, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3M 2J6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that Poston and Dougherty are mistaken in supposing that the hiddenness argument contains ambiguities about the nature of belief. And the attempt to extract from their mistaken account some reasons for favouring a broad, disjunctive view of divine – creature relationship that will be convincing for individuals not in the grip of theological assumptions comes up dry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 199 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. The two pieces are ‘The hiddenness argument revisited (I)’, and ‘The hiddenness argument revisited (II),’ Religious Studies, 41 (2005), 201–215; 287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotation is from 302.

2. Ted, Poston & Trent, Dougherty ‘Divine hiddenness and the nature of belief’, Religious Studies, 43 (2007), 183–198Google Scholar. All page references given in the text are to this article.

3. Though I have used slightly different phraseology here to parallel, where possible, the phraseology of the PD piece, the content of (6*) and (7*) is precisely what one will find in ‘The hiddenness argument revisited (I)’, 202–203.