PhD student, Philosophy of Religion, University of Tehran
10.48308/kj.2025.241540.1355
Abstract
This article critically analyzes Graham Oppy’s criteria for evaluating "successful arguments" in the philosophy of religion. Oppy, a contemporary philosopher, provides a methodological framework to distinguish compelling arguments from unsuccessful ones, which includes criteria such as the acceptability of premises, explanatory power, and resistance to criticism. The aim of this research is to critically analyze this approach and examine its strengths and weaknesses. This article argues that although Oppy’s framework is useful for structuring philosophical debates and enhancing argumentative rigor, his criteria may be overly stringent and could, in practice, render metaphysical arguments vulnerable to refutation. Furthermore, this approach tends to justify belief rather than provide definitive proof, and in some cases, it overlooks the complex and intuitive nature of theological arguments. Ultimately, by providing a comprehensive assessment, this article demonstrates that while Oppy’s criteria can be used as a valuable analytical tool, they cannot, on their own, determine the fate of all arguments in the philosophy of religion and require reassessment and modification.
)