Agnosticism and Fictionalism: A Reply to Le Poidevin

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3413

Abstract

I have always found Robin’s writings on religion delightfully insightful and stimulating, and this piece was no exception. What follows are some of the thoughts that occurred to me, in order of occurrence.

References

Deng, Natalja. 2019. “Religion for Naturalists and the Meaning of Belief”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11, no. 3: 157–74. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v11i3.3034.

Jay, Christopher. 2014. “The Kantian Moral Hazard Argument for Religious Fictionalism”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 75, no. 3: 207–32. doi:10.1007/s11153-013-9435-0.

Le Poidevin, Robin. 1996. Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. London: Routledge.

—. 2016. “Playing the God Game: The Perlis of Religious Fictionalism”. In Alternative Concepts of God: Essays on the Metaphysics of the Divine, edited by Andrei Buckareff and Yujin Nagasawa, 178–91. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

—. 2020. “Fiction and the Agnostic”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12, no. 3. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3415.

Downloads

Published

2020-09-24

How to Cite

Deng, Natalja. 2020. “Agnosticism and Fictionalism: A Reply to Le Poidevin”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12 (3):183-88. https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3413.

Issue

Section

Munich Lectures in Philosophy of Religion