Search published articles


Showing 2 results for Rasoulipour


Volume 4, Issue 3 (Summer 2024)
Abstract

Since so many people are constantly trying to find sufficient evidence for the existence of God, but fail to attain that evidence, though they are not at fault, the issue of divine hiddenness takes form. Some contemporary philosophers have conducted investigations on this issue by various means, but the philosopher who first took steps to investigate this issue more comprehensively is the Canadian philosopher J.L. Schellenberg. In 2015, he proposed the argument for divine hiddenness in his book The Hiddenness Argument and presented it as a counterargument in favor of atheism. This argument claims that if there was a God, he should have provided sufficient evidence and reason supporting this belief at least for those in search of him, but this is not the case and thus, God does not exist. The aim of this paper, in addition to explaining Schellenberg's argument for divine hiddenness, will be to examine the view of Michael Rea, an American philosopher of religion, on this issue.
 
Rasoul Rasoulipour,
Volume 28, Issue 1 (1-2021)
Abstract

The main argument of the book Warranted Christian Belief by Plantinga is a distinction between de facto and de jure objections to Christian belief. De facto objections, according to him, are those about the truth of Christian belief, where the claim is relatively straightforward that rge belief is false. However, Plantinga is primarily concerned with de jure objections, which are arguments or claims that Christian belief, whether or not true, is at any rate unjustifiable, or irrational, or without sufficient evidence, or in some way not intellectually respectable. While the conclusion of such objections is that there is something wrong with Christian belief, Plantinga contends that the question is never explicitly formulated of what exactly is wrong; however, he finally locates a promising candidate for the de jure question in the complaints against theistic belief by Freud and Marx. Critics, according to Plantinga, cannot simply object to the rationality or justifiability of theistic belief without presupposing that theistic belief is false. However, I will, in this paper, argue that the epistemic objection to the rationality of theism need not presuppose the falsity of theism or Christian belief, and I will show that the most important charge against Plantinga’s defense – if theism is true, it is warranted – is that it proves too much.


Page 1 from 1