Abstract
In a situation approximating S the conversation is likely to gravitate towards the central doctrines of the religions, though it may verge on them gradually and circuitously by way of peripheral questions. Speakers may have to feel their way along as they try to find out how other speakers formulate the central doctrines of their religions and what these formulas imply. It may take time and patience to understand the central issues at stake.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
A. J. Arberry,‘The Koran Interpreted’(London: Allen & Unwin, 1955).
See for example E. A. Burtt,‘Types of Religious Philosophy’(New York: Harper, 1951), where in ch. vii he discusses Spinoza and briefly Haeckel under that heading.
See William A. Christian,‘Religious Valuations of Scientific Truths’,‘American Philosophical Quarterly’vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 144–50 (April 1969).
Basil Mitchell (ed.),‘Faith and Logic’(Boston: Beacon Press, 1957) pp. 10–11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1972 William A. Christian
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Christian, W.A. (1972). A Problematical Case. In: Oppositions of Religious Doctrines. Philosophy of Religion Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00523-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00523-9_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-00525-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-00523-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)