Reconciling reason and religion: A response to peels: Brian Zamulinski

Religious Studies 46 (1):109-113 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In ‘The ethics of belief and Christian faith as commitment to assumptions’, Rik Peels attacks the views that I advanced in ‘Christianity and the ethics of belief’. Here, I rebut his criticisms of the claim that it is wrong to believe without sufficient evidence, of the contention that Christians are committed to that claim, and of the notion of that faith is not belief but commitment to assumptions in the hope of salvation. My original conclusions still stand

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

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

Christianity and the ethics of belief.Brian Zamulinski - 2008 - Religious Studies 44 (3):333-346.
Do religious beliefs aim at the truth?Michael Scott - 2005 - Religious Studies 41 (2):217-224.
Rejoinder to Mawson.Brian Zamulinski - 2004 - Religious Studies 40 (3):365-366.
Why responsible belief is blameless belief.Anthony Robert Booth & Rik Peels - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy 107 (5):257-265.
A Re-evaluation of Clifford and His Critics.Brian Zamulinski - 2002 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 40 (3):437-457.
God, Evil, and Evolution.Brian Zamulinski - 2010 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (2):201 - 217.
On Ignorance: A Reply to Peels.Pierre LeMorvan - 2011 - Philosophia 39 (2):335-344.
Rejoinder to Scott.Brian Zamulinski - 2005 - Religious Studies 41 (2):225-229.
Believing by faith: an essay in the epistemology and ethics of religious belief.John Bishop - 2007 - New York : Oxford University Press,: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
39 (#397,578)

6 months
5 (#652,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?