Reinventing Philosophy of Religion An Opinionated Introduction

Reinventing Philosophy of Religion An Opinionated Introduction

Widespread conflict between worldviews prompts philosophical questions. Are all worldviews religious? Is there a common core to all worldviews? Is there one true worldview? Are some worldviews better than others? Are there proofs that ought to bring an end to all disputes about worldviews? Might we reasonably agree to disagree when it comes to questions about worldviews? Can one lead a worthwhile life if one subscribes to a false worldview? Are people who do not have a religious worldview necessarily wicked or immoral? Should worldview education be an entirely private matter? This book is an introduction to these—and other—central questions in the philosophy of religion, as well as a defense of the idea that these kinds of questions are the central subject matter of philosophy of religion.



4 thoughts on “Reinventing Philosophy of Religion An Opinionated Introduction

  1. Is this your book or one you’ve read?

    My opinion on worldviews and religion: we all find our own truth. Great beauty and growth can be found in the opening of conversation and learning. I find something very evil in belief forced upon another devoid of rational discourse. Even in the form of a well-intended lecture. There’s so very little we can brandish as objectively true.

    • Its a book I want to read. I thought it was interesting. As a Christian I have noticed that typically we are the only ones that talk about “world view”. What makes that interesting is that everybody has one but most don’t want to own it.

      But you’re right. Forced belief does nothing in terms of advancing the cause of truth. In fact one could probably make the case that forced belief is impossible in that it doesn’t produce genuine belief. That is why this business of objective truth is one that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

      I’m curious Nikeyo. From your “world view” what is the nature of objective truth? A penny for your thought 😉

      • Ah!

        You are not the only ones discussing it. We just use different terms and a very different starting assumption. 😉

        Love curious discussion! Interesting phrasing of the question though. Nature of?

        My epistemology is empirical and material. Anything non material is subjective, tautologically.

  2. The reason I crafted the question that way is because at a certain point we all rely on empirical data but what basis do we have for believing in empiricism? In other words, how do we know that empirical truth is the only truth and can provide us with accurate information about reality. In short what justifies empirical truth? Or does it need justification? Are empirical truths self verifying and if so how is that possible? Can we prove empirically that anything non-material is subjective? Tautologies are non-material, are they subjective too?

    I realize this is an uninterpreted series of questions and I don’t expect you to answer all of them or any of them. But if we understood the nature of objective truth claims we would be in a better position to answer these questions. What do you think?

    As you can see i’m a curious guy 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s