
#REDIRECT Philosophy of religion
Philosophy of religion is the rational study of the meaning and justification of fundamental religious claims, particularly about the nature and existence of God (or gods, or the divine). ==Philosophy of religion as part of metaphysics== Philosophy of religion was classically regarded as part of metaphysics, after Aristotle, among whose writings was a piece that later editors identified as ''The Metaphysics''. Aristotle there described ''first causes'' as one of the subjects of his investigation. For Aristotle, God was ''the'' first cause: the Aristotle#Aristotle.27s_Four_Causes. Philosophy of religion as a branch of metaphysics later came to be called natural theology by rationalism philosophers of the 17th century and 18th century centuries. In the 20th century, philosophers have adopted the term 'philosophy of religion' for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, though it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic Philosophy, as a part of metaphysics. It can be argued that to nearly anyone capable of understanding the issues, it should be clear why considerations of the divine have been regarded as metaphysical. God, according to most conceptions of God as divine, would be in an important category: that of beings different from the rest of the universe. That is, God is typically conceived as not having a body, and the "mind" of the divine is not typically regarded as anything very like an ordinary human mind. Metaphysics, and in particular ontology, is concerned with the most basic category of being of existence, those types of existence that cannot be explained as any other type of existence. By taking this view, the very notion of God (the gods, the divine) cannot be reduced to human concepts of mind or body; God is, on such a view, a ''sui generis'' entity, an entity in a category all of its own. This, however, would be to view the content of the philosophy of religion very narrowly. In fact the subject has long involved important questions in areas such as epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and moral philosophy (as the following section indicates). ==The questions asked in the philosophy of religion== There are a lot of philosophical questions that can be asked about religious beliefs. Two of the significant questions in this field are: # What is God? That is, what is the meaning of the word 'God'? # Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist? Still, there are ''other'' questions studied in the philosophy of religion. What, if anything, would give us good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred? What is the relationship between faith and reason? What is the relationship between morality and religion? What is the status of religious language? Does petitionary prayer (sometimes still called ''impetratory prayer'') make sense? ==What is God?== The question "What is God?" is sometimes also phrased as "What is the meaning of the word 'God'?" Most philosophers expect some sort of definition as an answer to this question, but they are not content simply to describe the way the word is used: they want to know the essence of what it means to be ''God''. Western philosophers typically concern themselves with the God of monotheistic religion (see the nature of God in Western theology), but discussions also concern themselves with other conceptions of the divine. Indeed, before attempting a definition of a term it is essential to know what ''sense'' of the term is to be defined. In this case, this is particularly important because there are a number of widely different senses of the word 'God'. The term is ambiguity: it is used in different ways by different people. So before we try to answer the question "What is God?" by giving a definition, first we have to get clear on which conception of God we are trying to define. Among those people who believe in supernatural beings, some believe there is just one God (''monotheism''; see also monotheistic religion), while others, in the greatest numbers Hinduism, believe in many different gods (''polytheism''; see also polytheistic religion). Buddhism generally do not believe in a personal God similar to that of the Abrahamic religions but direct attention to a more undefined state of being called Nirvana. Within these two broad categories there is a huge variety of possible beliefs, although there are relatively few ''popular'' ways of believing. For example, among the monotheists there have been those who believe that the one God is like a watchmaker who wound up the universe and now does not intervene in the universe ''at all''; this view is deism. By contrast, the view that God continues to be active in the universe is called theism. (Note that 'theism' is here used as a narrow and rather technical term, not as a broader term as it is below. For full discussion of these distinct meanings, refer to the article Theism.) Monotheistic definitions Traditionally philosophers of religion, at least in Europe, were interested in finding out what the word 'God' might refer to, ''in the sense in which it is used by theists''. Again, theism can be defined as the view that exactly one God exists, who is an eternally existent spirit, existing apart from space and time, who has created the universe out of nothing, and is therefore all-powerful; and usually this being is also thought to be all-knowing and all-loving. Even once the word 'God' is defined in this sense, there are still many difficult questions to be asked about what this means. For example, what does it mean for a ''spirit'' to create anything? What does 'all-powerful' mean? Polytheistic definitions: Pantheistic definitions: Panentheistic definitions: ==Rationality of belief== The second question, "Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist?", is equally important in the philosophy of religion. Since Plato and Aristotle, philosophers and theologians have offered arguments and counterarguments for the existence of God. ---- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all developed religious world views based on, or incorporating, philosophical speculation. There are separate entries on Jewish philosophy, Christian philosophy, and Islamic philosophy. == Major philosophers of religion == *M. M. Adams *R. M. Adams *William Alston *Anselm of Canterbury *Thomas Aquinas *Augustine of Hippo *Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius *Samuel Clarke *Lady Anne Finch Conway *Pseudo-Dionysius *Duns Scotus *Yehuda Halevi *Charles Hartshorne *John Hick (philosopher) *David Hume *Peter van Inwagen *Immanuel Kant *Søren Kierkegaard *J. L. Mackie *Maimonides *Basil Mitchell *William Paley *Blaise Pascal *D. Z. Phillips *Philo of Alexandria *Alvin Plantinga *Ninian Smart *Baruch Spinoza *Eleonore Stump *Richard Swinburne *Nicholas Wolterstorff ==See also== * Theology * Natural theology * Arguments for the existence of God * Arguments against the existence of God * Major world religions. == External links == *[http://www.galilean-library.org/int15.html An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners. *[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/phil_topics_religion.html Philosophy of Religion] — page of links categorised & annotated Philosophy of religion
Hi Larry The way you approach "philosophy of religion" is traditional, I know. It's really a series of reflections on (Christian) theology. But might this not be a good opportunity to break out of that shell and start on something more appropriate for the 21st century, a "philophy of religions" with the emphasis on that last s. Arguments for the existence of God were not only made by dusty Christian monks in medieval Europe, but also by dusty Hindu monks in India. And they were shouted down not only by French philosophes, but also by Buddhists and Confucianists.
I'll probably end up putting all this stuff in the religion section as time goes by, but I think a clearer link with philosophy would be A Good Thing (tm).
OTOH, It's one in the morning and I may be talking nonsense ...
See you all tomorrow -- User:clasqm
----
If you decide to add something to the article, please make sure it is something that is well-researched. If Eastern reflections about the divine are dealt with in the field that is called "philosophy of religion" (that's the subject of this article, after all), then by all means they should be included. If not, we should have a comment to that effect, with a pointer to :Eastern philosophy, :Eastern religion, :Eastern conceptions of the divine, or something like that. (I have no idea what specifically would be appropriate because I don't know enough about Eastern philosophy and religion.) --LMS
----
I think there is enough modern work in the field of philosophy of religion which isn't limited to the issues surrounding theism to make it worthwhile to offer definitions of "God" which are promulgated by Polytheists (though this group is the less well represented philosophically speaking), and Pantheists, as well as those offered by Theists, Deists, so I've added sections for these defs, and have generally tried to open up the text a bit, so that they can be included. (Certainly pantheism should be included as it is embraced by many neo-Platonists, as well as the likes of Spinoza, and Hegel)
I've also removed first and second person references, and all references to the progression of lectures... It's still rough draft, but it isn't as narrow as before, and I think it is a little easier to see out how to add more and move on from here than it was before. User:MRC
----
I found this on the main page, which seems to be some person's idiosyncratic thoughts about the philosophy of religion. If you wrote this, please study :Wikipedia policy generally.
:We haven't yet discussed the rationality of believing in the existance of God. The meaning of life is yet to be discovered without a shadow of a doubt (as far as I know) but so far, we can conjecture what it might be or at least the tasks that will lead up to the meaning. This ties in closely to my original point. If we look to the animals, for we are merely animals, we see tendencies to survive and most importantly, insure the survival of their spieces. Survival is something we easily do now, but how often do we insure the continued existance of man and to what extent? If we look at the three levels of physcology, intellectual, emotional and physical, we see three ways to continue ourseleves. The most obivious, physically we can reproduce ourselves. Intellectually, we have extended our lives and have countlessly insured the continued existance of several human beings. Emotionally, morale. A strong moral for ourself and for others (I'm not really clear on this one.) In order to excell at either of these three (which most people only look toward one, maybe two), we need to care, to care about everything and not give up. Unfortunately, religion has been our anchor. Humans don't need to care about alot of things, concepts, ideas and questions because of the idea about God and the established religions. Certain religions don't permit certain questions or merely provide unclear answers. We are taught not to investigate and merely accept that we are imperfect, will never be perfect and must spend valuable time carrying out tasks associated with religion. This is hindering out ability to do the, or find out the true, meaning of life, or at least our meaning. Technology useful to all of humankind has been developing at a faster rate than before, consistent with the number of questioners of religion.
:Personally, I've danced around being Atheist, Agnostic and a Realist but at current I have no label, no set of consistent beliefs to that of any current religion.
----
The following--the original version of the article I inputted--might or might not contain content that was ruthlessly hacked away from the current version. I'm saving it here so that the content can be incorporated, if necessary:
"Philosophy of religion" means "the study of the meaning and justification of fundamental religious claims, particularly about the nature and existence of God." Philosophy of religion is classically regarded as part of :metaphysics, since according to most conceptions of God, if God exists he's in an important category of being different from the rest of the universe. Right? God isn't a body and he isn't any ordinary sort of mind. Moreover, remember that metaphysics concerns basic beliefs which underlie many other philosophical beliefs -- and well, religious claims, as we all know, often underlie views about what we can know, how we can get knowledge, and how we should live. So all that is why philosophy of religion has been, traditionally, regarded as a branch of metaphysics. But more recently the philosophy of religion has been instead regarded as a subject unto itself.
There are a lot of philosophical questions that can be asked about religious beliefs. But there are two central questions in this field. They are: (1) What is God, i.e., what is the meaning of the word, "God"? (2) Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist? Still, there are other questions studied in the philosophy of religion. For example: What, if anything, would be good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred? Or: What is the relationship between the thing we call "Faith" and the thing we call "Reason"? Or: What might it mean for God to be exist as a trinity, that is as the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" of Christian theology? These questions all related to the original two fundamental questions, insofar as the other they either contribute to answering one or the other or both of the fundamental questions, or else they are relatively unimportant.
----
So let's examine the two questions in a bit more depth.
To begin with the first: What is God, i.e., what is the meaning of the word, "God"? Now, what would count as an answer to this question? A definition, no doubt; maybe other sorts of answers would be acceptable, but what we would naturally expect is a definition. Now remember something from our discussion of definitions. Before we give a definition of a term we want to know what ''sense'' of the term we want to define. There are different senses of the word "God." Clearly, the word is used in different ways by different people. So before we try to answer the question, "What is God?" by giving a definition, first we have to get clear on which conception of "God" we are trying to define! Some people believe that there is ''more than one'' God. They are called polytheists. For example, the ancient Greeks were polytheists, officially anyway, polytheists. We aren't going to concern ourselves with the merits of polytheism. Some people believe there is only one God. That belief is called monotheism. But there is a huge number of different kinds of monotheism. Some people have the rather strange view that there is one God but God is simply everything that exists; in other words the whole universe is God. This view is called pantheism. Some people believe that only one God exists, but that God is like a watchmaker who wound up the universe and now does not intervene at all, not even to answer prayers: they are called deists. The old French Enlightenment philosophes, like Voltaire, were deists. OK, so where do ordinary Christians fit into this? They are theists proper. Theism is the view that exactly one God exists, which is an eternally existent spirit, which exists apart from space and time, and which is the creator of the world, and is therefore all-powerful; and usually this being is also thought to be all-knowing and all-loving.
So let us suppose that we decide we are interested in finding out what the word "God" might refer to, in the sense in which it is used by theists. In other words, we decide we are not interested in any polytheistic sorts of gods, or a pantheistic sort of god, or a deistic sort of god. What we want to get some grasp on is what the God of Abraham and Jesus is. And suppose we decide on the definition of "God" that informs the stated definition of theism. So we say that "God" means "an eternally existent spirit which exists apart from space and time, which is the creator of the world, and is therefore all-powerful, and which is also all-knowing and all-loving." But then there are a lot of questions to be answered about this definition. For example, what does it mean for a spirit to create anything? What does "all-powerful" mean? There is no shortage of questions that philosophers -- both believers and nonbelievers, mind you -- have about the very idea, the very concept, of the God in whose existence theists believe. We will discuss such questions in a little bit.
But first let me introduce the second question that I said was so fundamental in the philosophy of religion: Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist? Now, what would count as an answer to this question? Well, of course, the words "Yes, we do" or "No, we don?t"; but then these words should be followed by supporting arguments, and the conclusions of the arguments would be either "God exists" or "God does not exist." We will discuss several arguments that God exists, and one major argument that God does not exist.
I?ve already introduced the names of different kinds of belief that God exists. We can give a general description of someone who does not believe that God exists -- we can say they are nonbelievers. Nonbelievers come in two varieties. Those who believe that God does not exist are atheists, and their view is called atheism, whereas those who believe neither that God exists nor that God does not exist are called agnostics, and their position is agnosticism. Some people who don?t think very much about the philosophy of religion tend to think that all nonbelievers are atheists, thus entirely ignoring a very importantly different position that some people take on the question of whether or not God exists, namely agnosticism. In its original sense, agnosticism is the view that we, humans, cannot know whether or not God exists. But there are some other views, which are not as extreme as that, which I am lumping in with agnosticism in that original sense. For example, if I say that I personally do not know, at present, whether or not God exists, then I am an "agnostic" in a looser sense of that word. I would even lump in with the agnostics those people who simply have no views about God, haven?t thought very much about it, and don?t care. I doubt there are very many such people these days, but those people too may be called "agnostics" in a loose sense of that term.
In the second part of our examination of the philosophy of religion, we are going to be considering the merits of theism, insofar we are going to evaluate some arguments for the existence of God, and of atheism, insofar as we are going to examine one important argument against the existence of God. But we are not going to be considering the merits of agnosticism. This is simply due to time constraints. But I can at least tell you what it would mean to consider the merits of agnosticism. Agnostics claim that the existence of God cannot be known; so to examine the merits of agnosticism would involve examining whether that claim have any good arguments in its favor. It might also involve examining whether one can be, in some sense, justified in not thinking about whether or not God exists. In other words, might we be justified in simply ignoring the issue of whether or not God exists? No doubt some theists would want to take some agnostics to task for not even thinking about whether or not God exists. And I?m sure you can imagine a debate, then, between them, where the theists on one side are saying that the agnostics really ought for the sake of their souls to be thinking about whether or not God really does exist, and the agnostics on the other side are saying that they are perfectly well justified in holding that thinking about it is a total waste of time. Well anyway, we are not going to listen in on that debate, however interesting it might be, because we have bigger philosophical fish to fry. And the first item on our menu, as I said, is the question of what God is.
Hi. Shouldn't there be only one amongst Philosophy of religion and Religious philosophy? --User:Alex.tan 05:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- The article on religious philosophy contained little more than links to articles on Christian, Judaic, and Islamic philosophies. I added these links to the end of the "philosophy of religion" article and made religious philosophy a redirect to this article. ---- ---- This article talks about Hindus believing in many gods and mentions this as polytheism. I think this is incorrect. The many gods that Hindus believe in are but different aspects of the same Supreme Being. Hindus are not polytheists, as many Westerners (incorrectly) believe. == Philosophy of Spirituality == This page discusses the Philosophy of Religion as the question of what is God and is there a God. Does the Philosophy of Religion answer or ask the question of whether there is another existence and what it is like? User:Hawstom 20:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) == List of philosophers == * I've just ordered the names alphabetically, and put them into list form; I hope that that's uncontroversial. I've also added a few names, most without Wikipedia articles yet (the most surprising omissions being Basil Mitchell and D.Z. Phillips), and taken out a few non-philosophers (theologians, sociologists, etc.). That might be more controversial, so discussion would be welcome. Μελ_Ετητης)">User:Mel Etitis 11:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == "What Is God" == Please check the external link under that text; I have examined it and I am very dubious about whether it's the sort of thing Wikipedia should link to. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 08:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) Good grief, I hadn't looked at it before. Yes, it's not only slanted towards a certain (very non-standard) point of view, but it's fuzzy and ludicrously inaccurate. I'll take it upon myself to remove it, and look for a resource that's more appropriate. Μελ_Ετητης)">User:Mel Etitis 09:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Noetica == I'm afraid that I've reverted most of your recent edits. Some (like 'among' for 'amongst') were just personal taste, and I'd have no more reverted them than I'd have bothered to make them, but a couple changed the meaning (for example, there's a difference between ''conceiving something as F'' and ''conceiving of something as F''). I suspect that you didn't mean to change those meanings. If you did, could we talk about them? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 22:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Mel, your reversions have resulted in inconsistencies. While 'amongst' versus 'among' ''may'' be just a matter of taste, and not of stylistic felicity, there are now two instances of 'among' and one of 'amongst' in the article. If you think such things make no difference, why object to the work towards consistency done by someone who ''does'' think that they make a difference? You have restored inconsistent usage of italics after 'called': "called theism", "called Nirvana", but "called ''natural theology''". You have restored a link (Catholic philosophy) that leads nowhere. You have damaged a link I supplied to 'Unmoved mover' that you claim to have retained. You have without explanation removed a clarification concerning categories, though I explained the change. You have removed a note about a term ("traditionally called ''impetratory prayer''") which, because of your removal, is now to be found nowhere in Wikipedia. You have restored faulty punctuation ("What is God, that is, what is the meaning of the word, 'God'?)", while silently and without acknowledgement in your note above retaining the correction of incorrect double quotes. Nor do you acknowledge that you have retained my quite important clarification concerning the meanings of the term 'theism' ("Note that 'theism' is here used as a narrow and rather technical term, not as a broader term as it is below. For full discussion of these distinct meanings, refer to the article Theism."). ''You'' had left the separate meanings hanging, which could only confuse the hapless user. On another matter, why do you say that you suspect I didn't intend to "change meanings" (you give only one example)? Isn't it perfectly evident that I am acting wittingly? I now await your justification of your 'conceiving' as opposed to my 'conceiving of' in the present context. :Last time you rapidly reverted my edits (at the article William A. Dembski) you were shown to be in error (and then you compounded the error); and you agreed that you had acted in haste. You apologised, and I accepted your apology immediately and wished you all the best! But it also may be a good idea for you to gain from that experience. --User:Noetica 23:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Well, 'among' ''vs'' 'amongst' is accounted a matter of taste in every reference book that I have to hand (in so far as there's a difference, Fowler prefers 'amongst' in this sort of context). My apologies for damaging the link; it came out looking very strange in my browser, and I was going to go back to it in order to sort it out. The term 'impetratory prayer' has long been ditched in favour of 'petitionary prayer', at least in the philosophy of religion books that I have to hand (which is a few hundred); '(which used to be called impetratory prayer)' would be OK, I suppose, though I don't really see the point of introducing needless theological jargon, even parenthetically. One shouldn't remove internal links unless one has good reason to suppose that there won't be a relevant article (and it seems likely to me that there will be one on Catholic philosophy). ::With regard to existence, I agree that that section needs attention, but I don't see that your correction really helped (and might have made things more obscure for the general reader). Frankly, I don't think that the notion of types of existence (or categories of existence) makes much sense, but it would be interesting to discuss it. ::I have to run now, but I'll come back to this tomorrow. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 23:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Mel, I look forward to your fuller explanation of your edits when you have the time, including those matters I mention that you have not addressed just now. I'll respond to the points you have made, though: :* You do not address what I say above about 'among' and 'amongst' and ''consistency''. Do address it, please. The main point was that, even if the inconsistency in question is something to which you are not sensitive (and indeed ''especially'' if that is the case), perhaps it is well to respect the changes made by others who ''are'' sensitive to that inconsistency. :* Similarly, the mere fact that you don't see the point regarding 'impetratory' does not mean that there ''is'' no point. While Google searches don't settle such things, and can be misleading, such a search shows that the term is indeed in current use. A user may well look for it by searching Wikipedia. The way I had things, they would find it explained; the way you altered things, they would not find it at all! :* With regard to categories in metaphysics, and all that, you are the one who had them there, and then shifted to another mode of explaining the thing. All I did was provide clarifying continuity, by expanding on the term 'basic category'. It is not I who introduced the awkwardness; I did something to ameliorate it. We both agree that the paragraph in question needs work; I acted conservatively, and (as I thought) with minimum disruption. :--User:Noetica 00:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Mel, here are your points in reply, faithfully reproduced, but with my responses inserted after them: ::1. I was wrong about the 'among/amongst' (in terms of the consistency); without reading through the whole article, of course, I couldn't tell that it was a matter of consistency. These things happen. Just reinstate the change and point out why in the edit (I have to do things like that all the time; it's part of the open-access way I'm afraid). :::OK, I'll do that. Thanks for your honest retraction! --User:Noetica 11:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::2. The place to mention a rather obscure and jargony term is surely in the article on petitionary prayer (I know, there isn't one — but there will be, and then we can add the alternative term). In a casual mention of the problem, as here, I think that it adds needless complication, and interrupts the flow. :::I have thought a lot about this one since my last entry here, and done some research (don't worry – not ''original'' research!). I understand your dislike of the word 'impetratory', and I'm no fan of it myself. But the plain facts are these: :::* It is a recognised, current English word. :::* It is (as I commented concerning my original edit) a traditional term of art in the area in question. :::* The term is still in scholarly use, often without glosses or explanation, in many current works, including several scholarly works on the web. (Look in Google, for example, for 'impetratory' and separately for 'petitionary'. Then do a search that excludes 'prayer' and also 'prayers', along with each of these. Then, doing the figures, one finds that Google gets about 6,600 hits for 'petitionary' and either 'prayer' or 'prayers'; but also about 5,000 for 'impetratory' and either 'prayer' or 'prayers'.) :::* The user looking for a gloss or explanation of it in Wikipedia will, if things are allowed to stand as they are, find it nowhere; and as things stand there is no better place for it than this article. :::* Wikipedia should not exclude terms simply because they are "jargony", especially if they are presented parenthetically to assist the user. :::As a compromise, and motivated by these considerations, I shall restore my parenthetic remark about the term, perhaps re-wording it slightly. I shall consider that it should stay, until the article you propose is in place; and then I shall be happy to see it there instead. --User:Noetica 11:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::3. On existence, we seem simply to have a diferent view on what is more and what less clear. Again, it happens all the time; let's get together and try to find a third approach that satisfies both (and, with any luck, others). :::Perhaps we do have a different view here, but perhaps not. We do agree that some work needs to be done for that paragraph. I sought only to ''patch'' what I regarded as unclear. I'd be happier to see the paragraph re-written. Would you like to have a go at drafting something for consideration here in Talk, or should I? ::4. With regard to conceiving, why did you think that the article should talk about conceiving ''of'' god rather than about conceiving god? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Ha ha! I asked you first. ("I now await your justification of your 'conceiving' as opposed to my 'conceiving of' in the present context.") After you! :::On other matters – concerning consistency and propriety of punctuation and such things – I see that you are silent. Does this mean that you don't ''care'' about such things, and are happy to leave things inconsistent and improper, as they are in your reverted version? :--User:Noetica 11:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::#√ ::#√ ::#Whichever of us gets to it first? ::#My own view is that we're concerned here with conceiving (in the sense of perceiving a concept) rather than with conceiving of (as in thinking about something in a certain way, or as having a certain property). ::#I'm not sure which you're referring to now; the only one that I remember was an n-dash that should have been an m-dash, and which I anyway changed to a comma. If I inadvertently reverted changes to corrected punctuation, I apologise. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 12:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::# Fine. :::# Fine. :::# Fine. :::# Well, I had thought that a conception rather than a concept (see Samuel Levin, ''Metaphoric Worlds'', 1988) was more the thing, given that the object of our apprehension (to use what I hope is a neutral term) was essentially remote from ourselves, ''sui generis'', and paradigmatically incapable of our conception proper. But I'll concede 'conceive' ''sans'' 'of', since OED considers them equivalent (for present purposes). :::# One of my changes was to turn a doubled hyphen into an en dash (properly flanked by spaces). I don't like em dashes, and there are many others who feel the same way. See Em_dash#En_dash_versus_Em_dash, where I have added one or two observations. I made no judgement on whether any sort of dash was needed there, and I do not object to your comma. But there were other punctuation changes, like my deletion of the comma that you seemed to think obligatory before ''mention'' of the word 'God' (as just now). You had (and have now restored): "What is God, that is, what is the meaning of the word, 'God'?" I wanted: "What is God; that is, what is the meaning of the word 'God'?" Note the semicolon here too, which I also regard as more standard. (Another question mark would also be possible.) But there was more! I think it's best not to do block reverts when a sensitive editor has been at work, but only to revert what one has thought through. Anyway, we have made progress! I'll fix a couple of things along the lines mentioned above; and no doubt we'll talk again. --User:Noetica 12:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't understand your point about dashes; the link you give is far from cleear (as with so much else in the MoS), and in so far as it is clear, it goes against normal rules of typesetting (though I accept that those are being increasingly ignored as publcishing is dumbed down and loses its skilled workers). I disagree with the semi-colon – it should be a colon, as it marks the introduction of an explanation – but in any case I hadn't noticed that, sorry. One probelm is that I'm overstretching myself, doing much too much, so fail to remember that a certain User (such as you) is more likely to make sensitive edits to English (especially as that puts you in a fairly small minority). I'll try both to reduce my activities, and to remember you... User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 13:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) What's not to understand about the question of dashes? The location I pointed you to makes things quite clear! (Apart from the oddity about ''semantics'', which I'm not reponsible for.) As for "normal" rules of typesetting, there are competing modern practices that are equally well established, each with good rationale behind it. There is no single "normal" set of rules! And that includes rules about dashes, as any survey of the more modern books in your library will reveal. I note that you yourself have just used the very en dashes that you earlier seemed to deprecate! I understand your case in favour of a semicolon rather than a colon, but in this very particular context I disagree. Very often, in fact, the choice between such a colon and such a semicolon is subtle and difficult; and often in those cases, it luckily doesn't matter. If you are overstretched, I understand. Yes, please respect my careful work. And your implied general apology is once more explicitly accepted! --User:Noetica 13:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I don't deprecate n-dashes; I use them for parentheses, for linking numbers in a range, etc. (I've checked all the sources that I can find, and they all agree on the use of different dashes (or rules); might this be a U.S.–U.K. difference, or somthing similar?) :I agree, though, about the difference between colons and semi-colons. :I'm happy to make the apology, if not ''general'', then at least ''explicit''. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 16:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Mel, I have done a global edit to reflect our determinations above. I have left the problematic paragraph as you had it, for now. Note especially that I have changed the names of centuries to conform to Wiki style, much as you and I might like to see them in words, not figures. I DO think there is work still to be done; but I have spent so much time in dialogue with you that I cannot justify doing more here myself, at this stage. ::As for your attitude to en dashes, do I understand correctly that you use em dashes instead of them for ''non''-parenthetic (colon-like) purposes? This is counter to all the canons of usage that I have come across, which at least implicitly have it that we choose just one style (en dash or em dash) for use in ''sentence punctuation'' (as opposed to en dashes in specifying ranges and the like). --User:Noetica 00:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Just on the business of dashes, I don't have my books by me, but all the books that mentioned them, including two different 'rules for typesetters/compositors' agreed that m-dashes and n-dashes (or m-rules and n-rules to give them their proper names) are used for specific purposes. Each book went into more detail than we need here, but the pertinent rules (upon which they agreed) were roughly that m-dashes be used except for parentheses, marking ranges of numbers, and linking terms where a hyphen is inappropriate (as, for example, 'Einstein–Bhose'). I've never seen a suggestion that one kind of dash be used willy-nilly. I've often seen books & journals which ignore those rules, of course. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 08:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) [Mel, I have transferred this discussion to your Talk page, since it is no longer relevant to this article--User:Noetica 10:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)]
These are the topics discussed in the philosophy of religion for which there are separate Wikipedia articles. Philosophy Religion
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Philosophy_of_religion:
Philosophy_of_Religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy of Religion
#REDIRECT Philosophy of religion
Philosophy of religion
Philosophy of religion is the rational study of the meaning and justification of fundamental religious claims, particularly about the nature and existence of God (or gods, or the divine). ==Philosophy of religion as part of metaphysics== Philosophy of religion was classically regarded as part of metaphysics, after Aristotle, among whose writings was a piece that later editors identified as ''The Metaphysics''. Aristotle there described ''first causes'' as one of the subjects of his investigation. For Aristotle, God was ''the'' first cause: the Aristotle#Aristotle.27s_Four_Causes. Philosophy of religion as a branch of metaphysics later came to be called natural theology by rationalism philosophers of the 17th century and 18th century centuries. In the 20th century, philosophers have adopted the term 'philosophy of religion' for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, though it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic Philosophy, as a part of metaphysics. It can be argued that to nearly anyone capable of understanding the issues, it should be clear why considerations of the divine have been regarded as metaphysical. God, according to most conceptions of God as divine, would be in an important category: that of beings different from the rest of the universe. That is, God is typically conceived as not having a body, and the "mind" of the divine is not typically regarded as anything very like an ordinary human mind. Metaphysics, and in particular ontology, is concerned with the most basic category of being of existence, those types of existence that cannot be explained as any other type of existence. By taking this view, the very notion of God (the gods, the divine) cannot be reduced to human concepts of mind or body; God is, on such a view, a ''sui generis'' entity, an entity in a category all of its own. This, however, would be to view the content of the philosophy of religion very narrowly. In fact the subject has long involved important questions in areas such as epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophical logic, and moral philosophy (as the following section indicates). ==The questions asked in the philosophy of religion== There are a lot of philosophical questions that can be asked about religious beliefs. Two of the significant questions in this field are: # What is God? That is, what is the meaning of the word 'God'? # Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist? Still, there are ''other'' questions studied in the philosophy of religion. What, if anything, would give us good reason to believe that a miracle has occurred? What is the relationship between faith and reason? What is the relationship between morality and religion? What is the status of religious language? Does petitionary prayer (sometimes still called ''impetratory prayer'') make sense? ==What is God?== The question "What is God?" is sometimes also phrased as "What is the meaning of the word 'God'?" Most philosophers expect some sort of definition as an answer to this question, but they are not content simply to describe the way the word is used: they want to know the essence of what it means to be ''God''. Western philosophers typically concern themselves with the God of monotheistic religion (see the nature of God in Western theology), but discussions also concern themselves with other conceptions of the divine. Indeed, before attempting a definition of a term it is essential to know what ''sense'' of the term is to be defined. In this case, this is particularly important because there are a number of widely different senses of the word 'God'. The term is ambiguity: it is used in different ways by different people. So before we try to answer the question "What is God?" by giving a definition, first we have to get clear on which conception of God we are trying to define. Among those people who believe in supernatural beings, some believe there is just one God (''monotheism''; see also monotheistic religion), while others, in the greatest numbers Hinduism, believe in many different gods (''polytheism''; see also polytheistic religion). Buddhism generally do not believe in a personal God similar to that of the Abrahamic religions but direct attention to a more undefined state of being called Nirvana. Within these two broad categories there is a huge variety of possible beliefs, although there are relatively few ''popular'' ways of believing. For example, among the monotheists there have been those who believe that the one God is like a watchmaker who wound up the universe and now does not intervene in the universe ''at all''; this view is deism. By contrast, the view that God continues to be active in the universe is called theism. (Note that 'theism' is here used as a narrow and rather technical term, not as a broader term as it is below. For full discussion of these distinct meanings, refer to the article Theism.) Monotheistic definitions Traditionally philosophers of religion, at least in Europe, were interested in finding out what the word 'God' might refer to, ''in the sense in which it is used by theists''. Again, theism can be defined as the view that exactly one God exists, who is an eternally existent spirit, existing apart from space and time, who has created the universe out of nothing, and is therefore all-powerful; and usually this being is also thought to be all-knowing and all-loving. Even once the word 'God' is defined in this sense, there are still many difficult questions to be asked about what this means. For example, what does it mean for a ''spirit'' to create anything? What does 'all-powerful' mean? Polytheistic definitions: Pantheistic definitions: Panentheistic definitions: ==Rationality of belief== The second question, "Do we have any good reason to think that God exists, or to think that God does not exist?", is equally important in the philosophy of religion. Since Plato and Aristotle, philosophers and theologians have offered arguments and counterarguments for the existence of God. ---- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all developed religious world views based on, or incorporating, philosophical speculation. There are separate entries on Jewish philosophy, Christian philosophy, and Islamic philosophy. == Major philosophers of religion == *M. M. Adams *R. M. Adams *William Alston *Anselm of Canterbury *Thomas Aquinas *Augustine of Hippo *Anicius Manlius Severinus Boëthius *Samuel Clarke *Lady Anne Finch Conway *Pseudo-Dionysius *Duns Scotus *Yehuda Halevi *Charles Hartshorne *John Hick (philosopher) *David Hume *Peter van Inwagen *Immanuel Kant *Søren Kierkegaard *J. L. Mackie *Maimonides *Basil Mitchell *William Paley *Blaise Pascal *D. Z. Phillips *Philo of Alexandria *Alvin Plantinga *Ninian Smart *Baruch Spinoza *Eleonore Stump *Richard Swinburne *Nicholas Wolterstorff ==See also== * Theology * Natural theology * Arguments for the existence of God * Arguments against the existence of God * Major world religions. == External links == *[http://www.galilean-library.org/int15.html An introduction to the Philosophy of Religion] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners. *[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/phil_topics_religion.html Philosophy of Religion] — page of links categorised & annotated Philosophy of religion
Philosophy of religion
Hi Larry The way you approach "philosophy of religion" is traditional, I know. It's really a series of reflections on (Christian) theology. But might this not be a good opportunity to break out of that shell and start on something more appropriate for the 21st century, a "philophy of religions" with the emphasis on that last s. Arguments for the existence of God were not only made by dusty Christian monks in medieval Europe, but also by dusty Hindu monks in India. And they were shouted down
Hi. Shouldn't there be only one amongst Philosophy of religion and Religious philosophy? --User:Alex.tan 05:42, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- The article on religious philosophy contained little more than links to articles on Christian, Judaic, and Islamic philosophies. I added these links to the end of the "philosophy of religion" article and made religious philosophy a redirect to this article. ---- ---- This article talks about Hindus believing in many gods and mentions this as polytheism. I think this is incorrect. The many gods that Hindus believe in are but different aspects of the same Supreme Being. Hindus are not polytheists, as many Westerners (incorrectly) believe. == Philosophy of Spirituality == This page discusses the Philosophy of Religion as the question of what is God and is there a God. Does the Philosophy of Religion answer or ask the question of whether there is another existence and what it is like? User:Hawstom 20:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) == List of philosophers == * I've just ordered the names alphabetically, and put them into list form; I hope that that's uncontroversial. I've also added a few names, most without Wikipedia articles yet (the most surprising omissions being Basil Mitchell and D.Z. Phillips), and taken out a few non-philosophers (theologians, sociologists, etc.). That might be more controversial, so discussion would be welcome. Μελ_Ετητης)">User:Mel Etitis 11:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) == "What Is God" == Please check the external link under that text; I have examined it and I am very dubious about whether it's the sort of thing Wikipedia should link to. -- User:Antaeus Feldspar 08:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) Good grief, I hadn't looked at it before. Yes, it's not only slanted towards a certain (very non-standard) point of view, but it's fuzzy and ludicrously inaccurate. I'll take it upon myself to remove it, and look for a resource that's more appropriate. Μελ_Ετητης)">User:Mel Etitis 09:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Noetica == I'm afraid that I've reverted most of your recent edits. Some (like 'among' for 'amongst') were just personal taste, and I'd have no more reverted them than I'd have bothered to make them, but a couple changed the meaning (for example, there's a difference between ''conceiving something as F'' and ''conceiving of something as F''). I suspect that you didn't mean to change those meanings. If you did, could we talk about them? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 22:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Mel, your reversions have resulted in inconsistencies. While 'amongst' versus 'among' ''may'' be just a matter of taste, and not of stylistic felicity, there are now two instances of 'among' and one of 'amongst' in the article. If you think such things make no difference, why object to the work towards consistency done by someone who ''does'' think that they make a difference? You have restored inconsistent usage of italics after 'called': "called theism", "called Nirvana", but "called ''natural theology''". You have restored a link (Catholic philosophy) that leads nowhere. You have damaged a link I supplied to 'Unmoved mover' that you claim to have retained. You have without explanation removed a clarification concerning categories, though I explained the change. You have removed a note about a term ("traditionally called ''impetratory prayer''") which, because of your removal, is now to be found nowhere in Wikipedia. You have restored faulty punctuation ("What is God, that is, what is the meaning of the word, 'God'?)", while silently and without acknowledgement in your note above retaining the correction of incorrect double quotes. Nor do you acknowledge that you have retained my quite important clarification concerning the meanings of the term 'theism' ("Note that 'theism' is here used as a narrow and rather technical term, not as a broader term as it is below. For full discussion of these distinct meanings, refer to the article Theism."). ''You'' had left the separate meanings hanging, which could only confuse the hapless user. On another matter, why do you say that you suspect I didn't intend to "change meanings" (you give only one example)? Isn't it perfectly evident that I am acting wittingly? I now await your justification of your 'conceiving' as opposed to my 'conceiving of' in the present context. :Last time you rapidly reverted my edits (at the article William A. Dembski) you were shown to be in error (and then you compounded the error); and you agreed that you had acted in haste. You apologised, and I accepted your apology immediately and wished you all the best! But it also may be a good idea for you to gain from that experience. --User:Noetica 23:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Well, 'among' ''vs'' 'amongst' is accounted a matter of taste in every reference book that I have to hand (in so far as there's a difference, Fowler prefers 'amongst' in this sort of context). My apologies for damaging the link; it came out looking very strange in my browser, and I was going to go back to it in order to sort it out. The term 'impetratory prayer' has long been ditched in favour of 'petitionary prayer', at least in the philosophy of religion books that I have to hand (which is a few hundred); '(which used to be called impetratory prayer)' would be OK, I suppose, though I don't really see the point of introducing needless theological jargon, even parenthetically. One shouldn't remove internal links unless one has good reason to suppose that there won't be a relevant article (and it seems likely to me that there will be one on Catholic philosophy). ::With regard to existence, I agree that that section needs attention, but I don't see that your correction really helped (and might have made things more obscure for the general reader). Frankly, I don't think that the notion of types of existence (or categories of existence) makes much sense, but it would be interesting to discuss it. ::I have to run now, but I'll come back to this tomorrow. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 23:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Mel, I look forward to your fuller explanation of your edits when you have the time, including those matters I mention that you have not addressed just now. I'll respond to the points you have made, though: :* You do not address what I say above about 'among' and 'amongst' and ''consistency''. Do address it, please. The main point was that, even if the inconsistency in question is something to which you are not sensitive (and indeed ''especially'' if that is the case), perhaps it is well to respect the changes made by others who ''are'' sensitive to that inconsistency. :* Similarly, the mere fact that you don't see the point regarding 'impetratory' does not mean that there ''is'' no point. While Google searches don't settle such things, and can be misleading, such a search shows that the term is indeed in current use. A user may well look for it by searching Wikipedia. The way I had things, they would find it explained; the way you altered things, they would not find it at all! :* With regard to categories in metaphysics, and all that, you are the one who had them there, and then shifted to another mode of explaining the thing. All I did was provide clarifying continuity, by expanding on the term 'basic category'. It is not I who introduced the awkwardness; I did something to ameliorate it. We both agree that the paragraph in question needs work; I acted conservatively, and (as I thought) with minimum disruption. :--User:Noetica 00:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Mel, here are your points in reply, faithfully reproduced, but with my responses inserted after them: ::1. I was wrong about the 'among/amongst' (in terms of the consistency); without reading through the whole article, of course, I couldn't tell that it was a matter of consistency. These things happen. Just reinstate the change and point out why in the edit (I have to do things like that all the time; it's part of the open-access way I'm afraid). :::OK, I'll do that. Thanks for your honest retraction! --User:Noetica 11:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::2. The place to mention a rather obscure and jargony term is surely in the article on petitionary prayer (I know, there isn't one — but there will be, and then we can add the alternative term). In a casual mention of the problem, as here, I think that it adds needless complication, and interrupts the flow. :::I have thought a lot about this one since my last entry here, and done some research (don't worry – not ''original'' research!). I understand your dislike of the word 'impetratory', and I'm no fan of it myself. But the plain facts are these: :::* It is a recognised, current English word. :::* It is (as I commented concerning my original edit) a traditional term of art in the area in question. :::* The term is still in scholarly use, often without glosses or explanation, in many current works, including several scholarly works on the web. (Look in Google, for example, for 'impetratory' and separately for 'petitionary'. Then do a search that excludes 'prayer' and also 'prayers', along with each of these. Then, doing the figures, one finds that Google gets about 6,600 hits for 'petitionary' and either 'prayer' or 'prayers'; but also about 5,000 for 'impetratory' and either 'prayer' or 'prayers'.) :::* The user looking for a gloss or explanation of it in Wikipedia will, if things are allowed to stand as they are, find it nowhere; and as things stand there is no better place for it than this article. :::* Wikipedia should not exclude terms simply because they are "jargony", especially if they are presented parenthetically to assist the user. :::As a compromise, and motivated by these considerations, I shall restore my parenthetic remark about the term, perhaps re-wording it slightly. I shall consider that it should stay, until the article you propose is in place; and then I shall be happy to see it there instead. --User:Noetica 11:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::3. On existence, we seem simply to have a diferent view on what is more and what less clear. Again, it happens all the time; let's get together and try to find a third approach that satisfies both (and, with any luck, others). :::Perhaps we do have a different view here, but perhaps not. We do agree that some work needs to be done for that paragraph. I sought only to ''patch'' what I regarded as unclear. I'd be happier to see the paragraph re-written. Would you like to have a go at drafting something for consideration here in Talk, or should I? ::4. With regard to conceiving, why did you think that the article should talk about conceiving ''of'' god rather than about conceiving god? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Ha ha! I asked you first. ("I now await your justification of your 'conceiving' as opposed to my 'conceiving of' in the present context.") After you! :::On other matters – concerning consistency and propriety of punctuation and such things – I see that you are silent. Does this mean that you don't ''care'' about such things, and are happy to leave things inconsistent and improper, as they are in your reverted version? :--User:Noetica 11:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::#√ ::#√ ::#Whichever of us gets to it first? ::#My own view is that we're concerned here with conceiving (in the sense of perceiving a concept) rather than with conceiving of (as in thinking about something in a certain way, or as having a certain property). ::#I'm not sure which you're referring to now; the only one that I remember was an n-dash that should have been an m-dash, and which I anyway changed to a comma. If I inadvertently reverted changes to corrected punctuation, I apologise. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 12:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::# Fine. :::# Fine. :::# Fine. :::# Well, I had thought that a conception rather than a concept (see Samuel Levin, ''Metaphoric Worlds'', 1988) was more the thing, given that the object of our apprehension (to use what I hope is a neutral term) was essentially remote from ourselves, ''sui generis'', and paradigmatically incapable of our conception proper. But I'll concede 'conceive' ''sans'' 'of', since OED considers them equivalent (for present purposes). :::# One of my changes was to turn a doubled hyphen into an en dash (properly flanked by spaces). I don't like em dashes, and there are many others who feel the same way. See Em_dash#En_dash_versus_Em_dash, where I have added one or two observations. I made no judgement on whether any sort of dash was needed there, and I do not object to your comma. But there were other punctuation changes, like my deletion of the comma that you seemed to think obligatory before ''mention'' of the word 'God' (as just now). You had (and have now restored): "What is God, that is, what is the meaning of the word, 'God'?" I wanted: "What is God; that is, what is the meaning of the word 'God'?" Note the semicolon here too, which I also regard as more standard. (Another question mark would also be possible.) But there was more! I think it's best not to do block reverts when a sensitive editor has been at work, but only to revert what one has thought through. Anyway, we have made progress! I'll fix a couple of things along the lines mentioned above; and no doubt we'll talk again. --User:Noetica 12:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't understand your point about dashes; the link you give is far from cleear (as with so much else in the MoS), and in so far as it is clear, it goes against normal rules of typesetting (though I accept that those are being increasingly ignored as publcishing is dumbed down and loses its skilled workers). I disagree with the semi-colon – it should be a colon, as it marks the introduction of an explanation – but in any case I hadn't noticed that, sorry. One probelm is that I'm overstretching myself, doing much too much, so fail to remember that a certain User (such as you) is more likely to make sensitive edits to English (especially as that puts you in a fairly small minority). I'll try both to reduce my activities, and to remember you... User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 13:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) What's not to understand about the question of dashes? The location I pointed you to makes things quite clear! (Apart from the oddity about ''semantics'', which I'm not reponsible for.) As for "normal" rules of typesetting, there are competing modern practices that are equally well established, each with good rationale behind it. There is no single "normal" set of rules! And that includes rules about dashes, as any survey of the more modern books in your library will reveal. I note that you yourself have just used the very en dashes that you earlier seemed to deprecate! I understand your case in favour of a semicolon rather than a colon, but in this very particular context I disagree. Very often, in fact, the choice between such a colon and such a semicolon is subtle and difficult; and often in those cases, it luckily doesn't matter. If you are overstretched, I understand. Yes, please respect my careful work. And your implied general apology is once more explicitly accepted! --User:Noetica 13:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I don't deprecate n-dashes; I use them for parentheses, for linking numbers in a range, etc. (I've checked all the sources that I can find, and they all agree on the use of different dashes (or rules); might this be a U.S.–U.K. difference, or somthing similar?) :I agree, though, about the difference between colons and semi-colons. :I'm happy to make the apology, if not ''general'', then at least ''explicit''. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 16:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Mel, I have done a global edit to reflect our determinations above. I have left the problematic paragraph as you had it, for now. Note especially that I have changed the names of centuries to conform to Wiki style, much as you and I might like to see them in words, not figures. I DO think there is work still to be done; but I have spent so much time in dialogue with you that I cannot justify doing more here myself, at this stage. ::As for your attitude to en dashes, do I understand correctly that you use em dashes instead of them for ''non''-parenthetic (colon-like) purposes? This is counter to all the canons of usage that I have come across, which at least implicitly have it that we choose just one style (en dash or em dash) for use in ''sentence punctuation'' (as opposed to en dashes in specifying ranges and the like). --User:Noetica 00:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Just on the business of dashes, I don't have my books by me, but all the books that mentioned them, including two different 'rules for typesetters/compositors' agreed that m-dashes and n-dashes (or m-rules and n-rules to give them their proper names) are used for specific purposes. Each book went into more detail than we need here, but the pertinent rules (upon which they agreed) were roughly that m-dashes be used except for parentheses, marking ranges of numbers, and linking terms where a hyphen is inappropriate (as, for example, 'Einstein–Bhose'). I've never seen a suggestion that one kind of dash be used willy-nilly. I've often seen books & journals which ignore those rules, of course. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 08:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) [Mel, I have transferred this discussion to your Talk page, since it is no longer relevant to this article--User:Noetica 10:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)]
Philosophy of religion
These are the topics discussed in the philosophy of religion for which there are separate Wikipedia articles. Philosophy Religion
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Philosophy_of_religion:
Philosophy_of_Religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
Philosophy_of_religion
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
