Talk:Religious epistemology

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)

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)