It's a great book and I think it's important because of two issues that arise when I have used the argument myself. (1) One is to detail why it is not just another formulation of the POE, something which the reviewer notes and says summarizes nicely. (2) It also pins down the fact that nonresistant nonbelief is the term to use, not reasonable unbelief or the like.
I do wish more attention was given to discharging the contention that nonresistant nonbelievers do not exist. I know the more concerning responses Schellenberg interacts with don't take such a stance but it is a very common contention among a wide range of theists. Recently William Lane Craig denied their existence so there's at least an apologetic tactical issue that might stand in the way of popularizing the argument for a wider audience.
1 comment:
It's a great book and I think it's important because of two issues that arise when I have used the argument myself. (1) One is to detail why it is not just another formulation of the POE, something which the reviewer notes and says summarizes nicely. (2) It also pins down the fact that nonresistant nonbelief is the term to use, not reasonable unbelief or the like.
I do wish more attention was given to discharging the contention that nonresistant nonbelievers do not exist. I know the more concerning responses Schellenberg interacts with don't take such a stance but it is a very common contention among a wide range of theists. Recently William Lane Craig denied their existence so there's at least an apologetic tactical issue that might stand in the way of popularizing the argument for a wider audience.
Post a Comment