Reply to Henk van den Belt’s and Rick Benjamins’ articles : The resurrection and the subject philosophy

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Abstract In the first part, Dirk-Martin Grube follows Paul Tillich’s leads by suggesting that revelation consists primarily in knowledge of knowledge rather than knowledge of facts. Grube holds that the evidence for the resurrection is such that its historicity can neither be confirmed (against Henk van den Belt) nor denied. Rather, it should be considered to be logically undecidable. Different from Van den Belt, Grube follows Tillich by sympathizing with the independence model for relating religion to science. In the second part, Grube takes up the issue Rick Benjamins focusses on, subject philosophy. After delving into the different positions on the way in which Tillich has adopted this philosophy, Grube evaluates subject philosophy, partly deviating from Benjamins, partly agreeing with him.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)149-166
Number of pages18
JournalNTT : Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion
Volume74
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reply to Henk van den Belt’s and Rick Benjamins’ articles : The resurrection and the subject philosophy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this