Voorwoord: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker Or, as you like, his meta-plea-for-atheism. And that each of those positions is impossible to hold.
|Published (Last):||14 November 2009|
|PDF File Size:||18.28 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
God in the Age of Science? Herman Philipse. The main options may be presented as the end nodes of a decision tree for religious believers. The faithful can interpret a creedal statement e. If it is a truth claim, they can either be warranted to endorse it without evidence, or not. Finally, if evidence is needed, should its evidential support be assessed by the same logical criteria that we use in evaluating evidence in science, or not? Each of these options has been defended by prominent analytic philosophers of religion.
In part I Herman Philipse assesses these options and argues that the most promising for believers who want to be justified in accepting their creed in our scientific age is the Bayesian cumulative case strategy developed by Richard Swinburne.
Using a 'strategy of subsidiary arguments', Philipse concludes 1 that theism cannot be stated meaningfully; 2 that if theism were meaningful, it would have no predictive power concerning existing evidence, so that Bayesian arguments cannot get started; and 3 that if the Bayesian cumulative case strategy did work, one should conclude that atheism is more probable than theism. Philipse provides a careful, rigorous, and original critique of atheism in the world today.
He has written numerous articles on modern philosophy and epistemology, and his most recent books are Atheistisch manifest Prometheus, , ; new edition Bert Bakker, , Heidegger's Philosophy of Being: A Critical Interpretation Princeton University Press, , and Filosofische polemieken Bert Bakker,
God in the Age of Science? Herman Philipse. The main options may be presented as the end nodes of a decision tree for religious believers. The faithful can interpret a creedal statement e.
Originally published in , Philipse brought out a new version in that included a new bundle of four essays titled De onredelijkheid van religie "The Unreasonableness of Religion". In the short book, Philipse opines that one can speak rationally about the existence of God , but if one wishes to take the natural sciences seriously, one needs to reject the traditional meaning of the word 'God'. However, if one wished to define the word 'God' as something unknowable, God cannot have any descriptive contents and therefore not exist. Thus there is no grounding for theistic morality. Philipse claimed that all arguments thus far proposed for the existence of God were invalid, while the theologians argued Philipse had insufficiently delved into the matter, missed the religious context, and ignored how much consolation belief in God offered. In , Philipse published a new and much more elaborate book, God in the Age of Science? He commented on the issue: "It was a matter of conscience.