The Rationality of Theistic Belief and the Concept of Truth

  • Lorenz B. Puntel
Part of the Studies in Philosophy and Religion book series (STPAR, volume 19)


This paper aims to show that the question whether theistic belief is rational cannot be adequately dealt with without clarifying the prior question concerning the connection between rationality and truth. This prior question in turn presupposes clarification of the more fundamental question as to what concept of truth should be assumed and made explicit if rationality were to be meaningfully treated.


Truth Operator True Sentence Determinate Status Epistemic Rationality Ontological Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alston, WP.: 1996, A Realist Conception of Truth, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.Google Scholar
  2. Bigelow, J.: 1996, ‘God and New Math,’ Philosophical Studies 84, 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandom, R.B.: 1994, Making It Explicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. and London.Google Scholar
  4. Forrest, P.: 1996, God Without the Supernatural. A Defense of Scientific Theism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.Google Scholar
  5. Foley, R.: 1987, The Theory of Epistemic Rationality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Grim, P.: 1991, The Incomplete Universe. Totality, Knowledge, and Truth, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. and London.Google Scholar
  7. Grim, P.; Plantinga, A.: 1993, ‘Truth, Omniscience, and Cantorian Arguments: An Exchange,’ Philosophical Studies 71, 267–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grover, D.L.; Camp, J.L.; Belnap, N.D.: 1975, ‘A Prosentential Theory of Truth,’ Philosophical Studies 27, 73–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grünbaum, A.: 1996, ‘Theological Misinterpretations of Current Physical Cosmology,’ Foundations of Physics 26, 523–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hales, St.D.: 1997, ‘A Consistent Relativism,’ Mind 106, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hazen, A.: 1996, ‘Worlds as Complete Novels,’ Analysis 56, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Merricks, T.: 1995, ‘Warrant Entails Truth,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55, 841–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Merricks, T.: 1997, ‘More on Warrant’s Entailing Truth,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57, 627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oppy, G.: 1995, Ontological Arguments and Belief in God, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Plantinga, A.: 1983, ‘Reason and Belief in God,’ in: A. Plantinga; N. Wolterstorff (eds.), Faith and Rationality–Reason and Belief in God, Indiana University Press, Notre Dame, 16–93.Google Scholar
  16. Plantinga, A.: 1993, Warrant: The Current Debate, Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plantinga, A.: 1993a, Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Plantinga, A.: III, Warranted Christian Belief (Typoscript, unpublished).Google Scholar
  19. Plantinga, A.; Grim, P.: 1993, ‘Truth, Omniscience, and Cantorian Arguments: An Exchange,’ Philosophical Studies 71, 267–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Puntel, L.B.: 1990, Grundlagen einer Theorie der Wahrheit, W de Gruyter, Berlin-New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Puntel, L.B.: 1992, ‘Theorie der Wahrheit. Thesen zur Klärung der Grundlagen,’ Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 3, 123–137.Google Scholar
  22. Puntel, L.B.: 1993, Wahrheitstheorien in der neueren Philosophie, 3d edition with a new appendix, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  23. Puntel, L.B.: 1993a, ‘The Context Principle, Universals and Primary States of Affairs,’ American Philosophical Quarterly 30, 123–135.Google Scholar
  24. Puntel, L.B.: 1995, ‘Der Wahrheitsbegriff in Philosophie und Theologie,’ Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Beiheft 9: Theologie als gegenwärtige Schriftauslegung, Tübingen, 16–45.Google Scholar
  25. Puntel, L.B.: 1997, ‘Metaphysikkritik bei Carnap und Heidegger: Analyse, Vergleich, Kritik,’ LOGOS 4 N.F., 294–332.Google Scholar
  26. Puntel, L.B.: 1998, ‘Begründung, Erklärung, Wahrheit,’ Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften 9, 135–138.Google Scholar
  27. Puntel, L.B.:1998a, ‘Is Truth Ideal Coherence?,’ in: A. Wüstehube; M. Quante (eds.), Pragmatic Idealism. Critical Essays on Nicholas Rescher’s System of Pragmatic Idealism. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 64, Rodopi, Amsterdam and Atlanta, 146–173.Google Scholar
  28. Puntel, L.B.: 1998b, ‘The “Identity Theory of Truth”: Semantic and Ontological Problems,’ forthcoming in: ANALYOMENIII, Proceedings of the 3d Congress of the Gesellschaft far Analytische Philosophie ( Munich, September 1997 ).Google Scholar
  29. Puntel, L.B.:1998c, ‘What does “ true” (“it is true that...”) express?,’ forthcoming in: The Proceedings of the 20 th World Congress of Philosophy, Boston 1998.Google Scholar
  30. Puntel, L.B.: 1999, ‘On the Logical Positivists’ Theory of Truth: The Fundamental Problem and a New Perspective,’ Journal for General Philosophy of Science 30, 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quine, W.V.O.: 1970, Philosophy of Logic, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  32. Rescher, N.: 1973, The Coherence Theory of Truth, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  33. Rescher, N.: 1979, Cognitive Systematization. A Systems-Theoretic Approach to a Coherentist Theory of Knowledge, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Rescher, N.: 1992, A System of Pragmatic Idealism. Vol. I: Human Knowledge in Idealistic Perspective, Princepton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  35. Tarski, A.: 1933; 1983, The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages (first published 1933), in: A. Tarski, Logics, Semantics, Metamathematics, translated by J. H. Woodger, 2nd edition, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis 1983, 152–278.Google Scholar
  36. Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Routledge Kegan, London, 6th impression 1955.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorenz B. Puntel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations