Thought Experiment between Revealed Theology and Narrative

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting and valuable idea. I think it is fine as is, but if you revise, I have two suggestions. There is minor tension between statements that talk about faith as beyond rationality ("exceeds the limits of the rational" p. 3) and others, with your revised epistemology, as being within rationality ("nor is it beyond the reach of rational thought" p. 5).

I think the article would be strengthened by some other examples of the value of thought experiments beyond the ontological argument, even where they might be seen historically, for example, rethinking the nature of baptism (believer's baptism, infant baptism), communion (what kind of presence?), divine providence (many metaphors trying to come to grips with the rise of modern science), etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

385-390 The distinction between philosophical theology and revealed theology is extremely helpful, since it takes away many of the critical remarks that often are raised against the empirical status of thought experiments.

462: My question concerns the role of normativity in regard of theological thought experiments. More precisely, is it possible to say that a theological thought experiment is good or bad in relation to its function in a religious community? Löfler´s mentions the requirement of religious assertions to belong to an admissible and acceptable logical system from an intersubjective point of view. But are there other aspects that are necessary for a thought experiment to be well-functioning, and who decides whether this is the case?  Furthermore, in case one recognizes that a text has an infinite number of possible and inexhaustible meanings, is there a danger that it ends up having no meaning at all? It would be clarifying for the reader of this article if these matters are addressed in some sense.

495-573 An interesting comparison is made between thought experiments and literary fictions, involving arguments by Elgin and Swirski. However, the comparison should benefit from being a bit more detailed. While the comparison is between theological TE: s and literary fictions, there are certain similarities with the comparison between philosophical TEs and literary fictions.

See for example, Carroll, Noël. 2002. The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Literature, and Moral Knowledge. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60: 3–26

Davies, David. 2010. Learning through Fictional Narratives in Art and Science. In Beyond Mimesis and Convention. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 262. pp. 51–69

Egan, David. 2016. Literature and Thought Experiments. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74: 139–50.

511-512 Defoe´s story of Robinson Crusoe is a well-chosen example, since it involves hypothetical scenarios that “induces us to think about ourselves, our social relations, and what is indispensable or superfluous around us.” However, to explain how a reflection on narrative scenarios can influence our own interaction with reality, it would be good to have a concrete example. Furthermore, in contrast to the parable of the prodigal son Robinson Crusoe is not a religious story. However, besides the sacred value attached to the former narrative, both relate (in a certain sense) to existential questions. To clarify the difference between literary fictions and theological thought experiments, it would be constructive if the author can make a brief comment on this matter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf