Reply to Deng, Hesse and Gäb

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3418

Abstract

I am very grateful to Natalja, Jacob and Sebastian for their kind attention to my paper, and for their many insights on this topic, which have materially helped me get clearer about some of the issues. All the points of disagreement are constructive and it has been both a pleasure and an education to engage with them. I’m also happy to note some points of agreement, too! Here I attempt to reply to some of the objections.

References

Cupitt, Don. 2002. Is Nothing Sacred? The Non-Realist Philosophy of Religion: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Fordham Univ. Press.

Deng, Natalja. 2020. “Agnosticism and Fictionalism: A Reply to Le Poidevin”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12, no. 3. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3413.

Hesse, Jacob. 2020. “Metalinguistic Agnosticism, Religious Fictionalism and the Reasonable Believer”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12, no. 3. doi:10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3417.

Larkin, Philip. 1988. “Church Going”. In Collected Poems, edited by Anthony Thwaite. London: Faber and Faber.

Lipton, Peter. 2009. “Science and Religion: The Immersion Solution”. In Philosophers and God: At the Frontiers of Faith and Reason, edited by John Cornwell and Michael McGhee, 31–46. London: Continuum.

van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Downloads

Published

2020-09-24

How to Cite

Le Poidevin, Robin. 2020. “Reply to Deng, Hesse and Gäb”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12 (3):203-13. https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3418.

Issue

Section

Munich Lectures in Philosophy of Religion