THE problem of religious knowledge may be stated very simply. If there is a real God, how can we find out that fact? The present discussion assumes that this is just what we must find out, if there is to be any possibility of a philosophically valid religion; for the essential element in religion is God, and consequently the essential philosophical question in regard to religion is that of the reality of God.

The early essays in this volume proceed on the assumption that a compatability system can be fashioned that will not only bring religious knowledge claims into harmony with scientific claims, but will also show there to be a fundamental similarity of method in religious and scientific thinking. They are not, however, unambiguously successful. Consequently Wiebe sets out in the succeeding essays to seek an understanding of the religion/science relationship that does not assume they must be compatible. The (...) examination, in the final analysis, reveals a fundamental contradiction in the compatability system building programme which suggests that religious belief is beyond legitimation. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to (...) be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

The pluralistic philosophy of religion of Abdolkarim Soroush, whose neo-rationalist thought represents a genuine epistemological turn within Muslim reform discourse, is the central issue in this paper. Abdolkarim Soroush, as a contemporary Muslim thinker, brings a completely new understanding of the issue of religious pluralism and by incorporating analytical philosophy, contemporary hermeneutic tradition and Sufi metaphysics, contributes to the creation of a characteristically distinct philosophy of religion within the Muslim intellectual circle. Issues of expansion and contraction of (...) class='Hi'>religious knowledge, as well as the expansion of prophetic experience, are inseparable elements of his philosophy of religion. (shrink)

This paper advocates for a “social turn" in religious epistemology. Part One reviews some familiar skeptical arguments targeting religious belief (the argument from luck, the argument from peer disagreement, Hume's argument). All these skeptical arguments say that testimonial evidence cannot give religious belief adequate support or grounding, especially in the context of conflicting evidence. Part Two considers some recent work in social epistemology and the epistemology of testimony. Several issues regarding the nature of testimonial evidence are considered, (...) and an account of testimonial evidence as a means of distribution of information through the system is defended. Part Three uses the results of Part Two to reconsider the skeptical arguments in Part One. (shrink)

Globalizing processes have rendered as analytically insufficient accounts of authority in the Muslim world that rely exclusively on the interaction between text, discursive method and personified knowledge. The construction and negotiation of globalized authority in Islam, it is argued, can only be understood by reference to a set of pluralizing processes that intensify and in some instances radicalize a tendency towards authoritative pluralism that has long been present in Islam. This can be understood in terms of (1) functionalization, or (...) changes in terms of how individual Muslims understand the social purpose and ends of knowledge seeking; (2) respatialization; and (3) mediatization or interrelated changes in terms of how far away and in what kinds of spaces and media one seeks authority or authorization. Collectively, such pluralizing processes combine to construct global Islamic authority in diverse forms that transcend or challenge conventional understandings of religious knowledge, its location and mode of articulation. Reference is made throughout to illustrative ethnographic examples, social movements and practices. (shrink)

This volume investigates for the first time whether and to what extent religious knowledge - e.g., "sacred" narratives, customary practices, legal rules, family traditions, festival observances - was accessible to and known by ordinary people beyond religious functionaries. This book is the first collaborative interdisciplinary study of this important subject area with chapters written by international experts on ancient Mesopotamia, the Hebrew Bible, Qumran literature, rabbinic literature, and early Christianity including apocrypha and monastic traditions.

Despite the desire of the theologians of various religious movements to prove the endurance and immutability of their confessional doctrine and worship, their search for the criterion of orthodoxy of these elements of the religious complex in their turning forms, the transformation of religious systems remains an indisputable phenomenon. Even the orthodoxy, to which Orthodoxy seeks to go, collapses when it collides with the national tradition in the world of its distribution. And though in the same way, (...) the same Christianity would not have sought to preserve identity to its turning point, but its entire history, beginning with the 1st century BC, is characterized by the emergence of various trends, "schism," "heresies," the rejection and organizational separation of the entire directions expressed dissatisfaction with either the dominant line of his functional being in society, whether certain innovations in his development, or the subjective factor of a certain denomination, etc. That is why, when studying the religious phenomenon in general, and especially its confessional modifications, it is important to adhere to the principle of historicism, carefully to analyze those internal changes, which ultimately determine the relative stability of world religious systems. (shrink)

The paper is a part of the panel discussion with John Greco about his theory of the transmission of religious knowledge. My goal here is not to argue with Greco's theory, but to find out whether it requires any adjustment. I argue that Greco's theory of the social transmission of knowledge requires the transmitted knowledge to be socially verifiable, that is, to be subject to those means of confirmation that pertain to the social system. Unfortunately, some (...) kinds of religious knowledge are not socially verifiable; therefore, they cannot be transmitted via Greco's social mechanism. I conclude that Greco's theory turns out to be applicable to the socially verifiable religious testimonies, and not applicable to the rest. (shrink)

An adequate account of testimonial knowledge in general explains how religious knowledge can be grounded in testimony, and even in the context of conflicting testimonial traditions. Three emerging trends in epistemology help to make that case. The first is to make a distinction between two projects of epistemology: “the project of explanation” and “the project of vindication.” The second is to emphasize a distinction between knowledge and understanding. The third is to ask what role the concept (...) of knowledge plays in our conceptual-linguistic economy. Each of these trends, it is argued, helps us to make progress in the epistemology of testimony, and by application in the epistemology of religious belief. (shrink)

Greco argues that knowledge by transmission involves joint agency whose norms are governed by the quality of the social relations in the transmission, and these norms differ from the norms generating knowledge in the source. This approach to the transmission of knowledge allows Greco to respond to three common arguments against the rationality of religious belief on testimony: the argument against belief in miracles, the argument from luck, and the argument from peer disagreement. I agree with (...) Greco’s position on the transmission of knowledge or reasonable belief in these cases and argue that the distinction between first person and third person reasons for belief can strengthen his position. The experience upon which a belief is based can be transferred intersubjectively and strengthens the ground for the belief based on experience, including the belief in miracles. Trust is another first person reason for belief, not only a background condition for reasonable transmission, and it also can be transmitted and is an important component in the formation and preservation of traditions. This feature permits a reply to the arguments from luck and from disagreement with people outside the tradition. But this feature also shows why we find these arguments threatening since we are rationally committed to a minimal degree of trust in all other reasonable persons. (shrink)

An adequate account of testimonial knowledge in general explains how religious knowledge can be grounded in testimony, and even in the context of conflicting testimonial traditions. Three emerging trends in epistemology help to make that case. The first is to make a distinction between two projects of epistemology: “the project of explanation” and “the project of vindication.” The second is to emphasize a distinction between knowledge and understanding. The third is to ask what role the concept (...) of knowledge plays in our conceptual-linguistic economy. Each of these trends, it is argued, helps us to make progress in the epistemology of testimony, and by application in the epistemology of religious belief. (shrink)

The Society "Knowledge" of Ukraine began the activity of the Department of Religious Studies. The Council of Lecturers is formed consisting of 24 people, among them are well-known philosophers, historians, sociologists - religious scholars: Doctors of Philosophy B.Lobovik, M.Zakovich, A. Kolodnyy, Yu.Kalinin, P.Kosuha, M.Rybachuk, P.Yarotsky, candidate of philosophical sciences M. Babiy, S. Golovashchenko, V. Yelensky, M.Kyryushko, O.Sagan, V.Suyarko, L.Filipovich and others.

This title was first published in 2002. This book builds on contemporary discussion of 'mysticism' and religious experience by examining the process and content of 'religious knowing' in classical and modern Advaita. Drawing from the work of William Alston and Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Forsthoefel examines key streams of Advaita with special reference to the conditions, contexts, and scope of epistemic merit in religious experience. Forsthoefel uniquely employs specific analytical categories of contemporary Western epistemologies as heuristics to examine (...) the cognitive dimension of religious experience in Indian Vedanta. Showing the developing nuances in the analysis of religious experience in the thought of Shankara and his immediate disciples (Suresvara and Padmapada) as well as in the teaching of Ramana Maharshi, an understudied but important South Indian saint of the 20th century, this book offers a substantial contribution to studies of Indian philosophy as well as to contemporary philosophy of religion. Using the tools of exegesis and comparative philosophy, Forsthoefel argues for a careful justification of claims following religious experience, even if such claims involve, as they do in the Advaita, a paradoxical 'knowing beyond knowledge'. (shrink)