WIARA, WĄTPLIWOŚCI I TAJEMNICA WCIELENIA UWAGI NA MARGINESIE KSIĄŻKI MARKA DOBRZENIECKIEGO UKRYTOŚĆ I WCIELENIE. TEISTYCZNA ODPOWIEDŹ NA ARGUMENT JOHNA L. SCHELLENBERGA ZA NIEISTNIENIEM BOGA
FAITH, DOUBTS, AND THE MYSTERY OF THE INCARNATION NOTES IN THE MARGIN OF THE MAREK DOBRZENIECKI’S BOOK UKRYTOŚĆ I WCIELENIE. TEISTYCZNA ODPOWIEDŹ NA ARGUMENT JOHNA L. SCHELLENBERGA ZA NIEISTNIENIEM BOGA

Summary/Abstract: This paper concerns an important and exciting book by Marek Dobrzeniecki Ukrytość i Wcielenie. Teistyczna odpowiedź na argument Johna L. Schellenberga za nieistnieniem Boga [Hiddenness and the Incarnation: A Theistic Response to John L. Schellenberg’s Argument for Divine Nonexistence]. After a brief discussion of the content of the book’s chapters, critical remarks are presented. They concern the adopted method and approach to Schellenberg’s philosophy in general and the argument from hiddenness in particular. The conceptual framework serving as a typologization of the propositional dimension of the phenomenon of theistic belief/faith is dubious and requires in-depth research. It is worth considering the possibility of asymmetry of the attitudes of belief/faith and unbelief, which requires consideration in the reasoning whose legitimacy would assume the transfer of features from one to the other and the negation functor. Regarding the voluntarism of belief in God, the paper suggests that extreme, purely intellectual, and purely volitional positions should be considered, as well as moderate and mixed ones. It is argued extensively that Dobrzeniecki’s criticism against the arguments of Rea and Mourad is not conclusive. Just the possibility of voluntariness of disbelief undermines the validity of Schellenberg’s argument and should therefore be ruled out as much as possible. The paper suggests supplementing Dobrzeniecki’s approach with a ‘trans-paradigmatic’ approach consisting of external criticism, which, in the light of Schellenberg’s arguments being probably incompatible with the described phenomenon of religious belief in God, leads to a modification of the theoretical apparatus of Schellenberg’s paradigm. Such a modification deprives the latter’s argument of justification.

• Details
• Contents