Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert
Erfordert eine Authentifizierung
Replies to Gäb, Schmidt and Scott
-
Tim Crane
Veröffentlicht/Copyright:
2. Dezember 2023
Abstract
This article replies to criticism of my article, “Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?” by Sebastian Gäb, Eva Schmidt and Michael Scott.
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Beitrag antwortet auf die Kritiken meines Artikels “Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?” von Sebastian Gäb, Eva Schmidt und Michael Scott.
Published Online: 2023-12-02
Published in Print: 2023-11-29
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.
Sie haben derzeit keinen Zugang zu diesem Inhalt.
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Munich Lecture in the Philosophy of Religion
- Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?
- What’s Belief Got to Do With It?
- Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement
- Why Belief? Varieties of Religious Commitment
- Replies to Gäb, Schmidt and Scott
- Other Research Articles
- Why we do not need demonstrative proof for God’s existence to know that God exists
- An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Munich Lecture in the Philosophy of Religion
- Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?
- What’s Belief Got to Do With It?
- Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement
- Why Belief? Varieties of Religious Commitment
- Replies to Gäb, Schmidt and Scott
- Other Research Articles
- Why we do not need demonstrative proof for God’s existence to know that God exists
- An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences
