pages 1-14

In defence of natural religion

Graham Renz 1
William L. Bell 2
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2024-11-21
scimago Q1
SJR0.475
CiteScore1.4
Impact factor0.7
ISSN00344125, 1469901X
Abstract

The dominance of the Abrahamic tradition in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion has led some to call for greater exploration of alternatives to the traditional conception of God, such as Pantheism, Ultimism, and Axiarchism. While we think this call for alternatives is important, we go in a different direction. Rather than explore and defend alternative conceptions of God, we defend a range of fairly traditional but non-religious conceptions of God. This range of views, from deism to philosophical theism, enjoys a variety of benefits over its religious competitors and deserves greater attention.

Found 

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
0
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Renz G. et al. In defence of natural religion // Religious Studies. 2024. pp. 1-14.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Renz G., Bell W. L. In defence of natural religion // Religious Studies. 2024. pp. 1-14.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1017/s0034412524000684
UR - https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0034412524000684/type/journal_article
TI - In defence of natural religion
T2 - Religious Studies
AU - Renz, Graham
AU - Bell, William L.
PY - 2024
DA - 2024/11/21
PB - Cambridge University Press
SP - 1-14
SN - 0034-4125
SN - 1469-901X
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2024_Renz,
author = {Graham Renz and William L. Bell},
title = {In defence of natural religion},
journal = {Religious Studies},
year = {2024},
publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
month = {nov},
url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0034412524000684/type/journal_article},
pages = {1--14},
doi = {10.1017/s0034412524000684}
}