Reply to Henk van den Belt’s and Rick Benjamins’ articles | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
Volume 74, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 2542-6583
  • E-ISSN: 2590-3268



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error