Talk:Religious epistemology

Philosophy: Epistemology / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of religion

Religion

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removing PROD

I have removed the proposed deletion template as I do not believe WP:NOTDIC applies to this entry: it currently may read like a dictionary entry because the entry is a new stub. But there are enough sources to establish that the concept of religious epistemology is not just a word but is a valid concept in philosophy of religion and epistemology. Blaauw and Pritchard's Epistemology A-Z has an entry for it citing the writings of Richard Swinburne. The reformed epistemologists are obviously relevant here: Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff et al. A search on Google Books gives you 5,000 results. The page on Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy also goes to establish the validity of the concept.

Away from analytic 'mainstream', there are books and papers asserting a "religious epistemology" for thinkers like Ludwig Wittgenstein, Paul Tillich, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Friedrich Schleiermacher, John Hick and so on.

Given that I cannot see how it could meet the standards needed for deletion (the topic has sources in abundance that establish notability as fifteen seconds on Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR and the online library catalogue of any reasonable sized university in the UK or US with a philosophy and/or theology department will attest), I am somewhat surprised given WP:BEFORE to see it proposed for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, absolutely correct removal of PROD. Give an article a chance to evolve - there's plenty of source material out there for a decent article. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]