At its deepest, philosophical skepticism questions the sense of language. Skepticism manifests itself in different forms, three of the most powerful being logical, external-world, and religious skepticism. How has philosophy of religion addressed these challenges? The attempt to answer this question leads Lance Ashdown to a consideration of three prominent contemporary philosophers of religion: Richard Swinburne, John Hick, and William Alston. The author shows that these philosophers are indeed open to the criticisms of the three types of skepticism mentioned above. According to Ashdown, they are rightly to be considered as 'anonymous skeptics'. Readers familiar with the work of the theologian Karl Rahner will recognize an echo of his famous doctrine that non-Christian religious believers are really 'anonymous Christians', i.e., Christian believers who do not recognize themselves as such. In a similar way, the philosophers of religion under consideration are skeptics who most certainly would not identify themselves as such. They are anonymous skeptics in the sense that their epistemologies create the very conditions that allow for the severe and, on their own terms, unanswerable challenges of skepticism. At the same time, none of these philosophers thinks that skeptical objections pose a devastating or unanswerable threat to their epistemologies. For example, each of them is an avowed believer in God and is fully aware of the challenge of religious skepticism, yet none believes that skepticism need cause a rational Christian to abandon his or her beliefs. Nevertheless, each of the three philosophers adheres to a philosophical theory that remains open to the devastating critique of Philo in David Hume's essay Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion - who argues at his deepest that talk of God is meaningless.
At its deepest, philosophical skepticism questions the sense of language. Skepticism manifests itself in different forms, three of the most powerful being logical, external-world, and religious skepticism. How has philosophy of religion addressed these challenges? The attempt to answer this question leads Lance Ashdown to a consideration of three prominent contemporary philosophers of religion: Richard Swinburne, John Hick, and William Alston. The author shows that these philosophers are indeed open to the criticisms of the three types of skepticism mentioned above. According to Ashdown, they are rightly to be considered as 'anonymous skeptics'. Readers familiar with the work of the theologian Karl Rahner will recognize an echo of his famous doctrine that non-Christian religious believers are really 'anonymous Christians', i.e., Christian believers who do not recognize themselves as such. In a similar way, the philosophers of religion under consideration are skeptics who most certainly would not identify themselves as such. They are anonymous skeptics in the sense that their epistemologies create the very conditions that allow for the severe and, on their own terms, unanswerable challenges of skepticism. At the same time, none of these philosophers thinks that skeptical objections pose a devastating or unanswerable threat to their epistemologies. For example, each of them is an avowed believer in God and is fully aware of the challenge of religious skepticism, yet none believes that skepticism need cause a rational Christian to abandon his or her beliefs. Nevertheless, each of the three philosophers adheres to a philosophical theory that remains open to the devastating critique of Philo in David Hume's essay Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion - who argues at his deepest that talk of God is meaningless.
Russia’s controversial annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its involvement in the conflict in Ukraine have left international audiences stunned. Russia now occupies a central place on the Western security agenda and has been recast as an important area of scholarly inquiry. The conflict has raised important questions about Russia’s understanding of conflict management and its approach to contemporary European security. This book provides a timely and contextual exploration of Russia’s post-Soviet legacy of conflict management in the backdrop of its interaction with Europe’s system of security governance. By exploring Russia’s approach from the early 1990s to the present day, the book offers a comprehensive exploration into the evolution of Russian behavior, investigating whether Russia’s approach has developed in accordance with the policies and practices of security governance that have emerged in the European experience of conflict management. Together with extensive documentary analysis and elite interviews, it employs the framework of security governance to examine Moscow’s behavior across a set of case studies situated in the European political and security environment. It offers a timely contribution to our understanding of Russia’s response to intrastate conflict and Russia’s broader engagement with its contemporary security environment.
Mario Spinelli is a Catholic, Italian-American young man from New York with a bright future in the paper industry. When the small paper mill where he is carving out his career is bought and then closed by industry giant Global Printing and Writing, he is forced to transfer to a huge, state-of-the-art mill in rural Arkansas to keep his career on track. His New York attitude quickly brings him trouble with the locals. He can't wait to escape his misery and return north until he meets and falls in love with a beautiful hometown engineer, Alisha Ann Reynolds. Mario joins in the antics of his coworkers, for whom bass fishing is the supreme entertainment. Through personal heroics and tragedy, he must rely on his steadfast faith in his struggle to win Alisha Ann's heart and acceptance with his peers.
Britain has one of the oldest and most developed democracies on earth. It is admired and copied the world over. Yet at home British politics is frequently viewed with a mixture of derision and contempt. Why? Our democratic system may be mature but the politicians we elect and the media we rely on to tell us what they are up to often behave like difficult teenagers, calling each other names, arguing for the sake of argument and pointing the finger of blame rather than accepting responsibility. Little wonder that the public switches off, tired of all the racket and fed up with the lot of them. How did we get into this sorry state, or was it ever thus? With first-hand experience of the worlds of both journalism and politics, Lance Price looks back over almost a century of battles between the media and our political leaders to find out who is to blame. He exposes liars in Downing Street and scoundrels in Fleet Street, bullies and megalomaniacs in both. There are many wiser heads, too, who see the madness and try to find a better way of doing things. Yet are all in pursuit of the same objective? Power. They want power over each other and power over the rest of us. It is a battle without end and too often the truth is the first casualty. Where Power Liesis the story of how powerful men and women have tried for generations to twist the facts to their own ends. It puts the struggle for supremacy between journalists and politicians into perspective. And it offers a glimmer of hope for a future in which both sides grow up, learn to respect each other and trust the rest of us with that most precious of all commodities, the truth.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.