Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:07:08.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The exoteric/esoteric divide and Schellenberg's Sceptical Religion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2017

TRAVIS DUMSDAY
TRAVIS DUMSDAY*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies, Concordia University of Edmonton, 7128 Ada Blvd., Edmonton, Alberta, T5B 4E4, Canada
*
e-mail: travis.dumsday@concordia.ab.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a ground-breaking series of books, Canadian philosopher J. L. Schellenberg (2005d; 2007b; 2009; 2013a) has developed a systematic non-theistic, non-naturalist philosophy of religion. One of the core claims within his system is that given our limited evidence (and limited capabilities for assessing what evidence we do have), scepticism concerning the truth of religious propositions is at present the only warranted epistemic response. In this article I draw attention to a potential complication for Schellenberg's assessment of the pragmatic implications of this evidential situation, a complication arising from the distinction between exoteric and esoteric religion.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 37 - 54
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, D. (1997) A World of States of Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. (2010) Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Bogdan, H. & Djurdjevic, G. (eds) (2014) Occultism in a Global Perspective (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Ellis, B. (2001) Scientific Essentialism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Ellis, B. (2002) The Philosophy of Nature: A Guide to the New Essentialism (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press).Google Scholar
Ellis, B. (2009) The Metaphysics of Scientific Realism (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press).Google Scholar
Goodrick-Clarke, N. (2008) The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Heil, J. (2003) From an Ontological Point of View (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Heil, J. (2012) The Universe as We Find It (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (1989) Kinds of Being: A Study of Individuation, Identity, and the Logic of Sortal Terms (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2006) The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Luck, M. (ed.) (2012) Philosophical Explorations of New and Alternative Religious Movements (Aldershot: Ashgate).Google Scholar
Moreland, J. P. & Craig, W. L. (2006) Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove IL: IVP Academic).Google Scholar
Partridge, C. (ed.) (2015) The Occult World (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Partridge, C. & Melton, J. G. (eds) (2004) New Religions: A Guide – New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities (New York NY: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Remes, P. (2008) Neoplatonism (Berkeley CA: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Rottschaefer, W. (2016) ‘Schellenberg's evolutionary religion: how evolutionary and how religious?’, Religious Studies, 52, 475–496.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (1993) Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (1996) ‘Response to Howard-Snyder’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26, 455–462.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2005a) ‘The Hiddenness Argument revisited (I)’, Religious Studies, 41, 201–215.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2005b) ‘The Hiddenness Argument revisited (II)’, Religious Studies, 41, 287–303.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2005c) ‘On reasonable nonbelief and perfect love: replies to Henry and Lehe’, Faith and Philosophy, 22, 330–342.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2005d) Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2007a) ‘On not unnecessarily darkening the glass: a reply to Poston and Dougherty’, Religious Studies, 43, 199–204.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2007b) The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2008a) ‘Reply to Aijaz and Weidler on hiddenness’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 64, 135–140.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2008b) ‘Response to Tucker on Hiddenness’, Religious Studies, 44, 289–293.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2009) The Will to Imagine: A Justification of Skeptical Religion (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2013a) Evolutionary Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2013b) ‘Replies to My Colleagues’, Religious Studies, 49, 257–285.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2015a) ‘Divine hiddenness and human philosophy’, in Stump, Eleonore & Green, Adam (eds) Hidden Divinity and Religious Belief: New Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 13–32.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2015b) The Hiddenness Argument: Philosophy's New Challenge to Belief in God (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Schellenberg, J. L. (2015c) ‘Philosophy of religion and Religious Studies: the next fifty years’, Religious Studies, 51, 450–454.Google Scholar
Smart, N. (1998) The World's Religions, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Wong, E. (1997) Taoism: An Essential Guide (Boston MA: Shambhala Publications).Google Scholar