Thesis (D. Min.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 153-161).

Thesis (M.A.)--Liberty University, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (S.T.M.)--Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, 1989. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [88-89]).

Thesis (M. Div.)--Calvary Theological Seminary, 1995. / [Abstract]. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 59-62).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2004. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 153-161).

The two traditional views in the epistemology of disagreement have offered distinct responses to the challenge of epistemic conflict. The purpose of this dissertation is to challenge these responses and offer a satisfactory position. This position is congruent with social epistemology as well as Christian apologetics. Chapter 1 introduces the epistemology of disagreement, giving attention to the concepts of disagreement found in the literature on religious diversity. This introduction also demonstrates that the two responses to disagreement possess features that are problematic for apologetics. Chapter 2 addresses the epistemic problems of the conciliatory response to disagreement. This chapter concludes that conciliation possesses an excessive view of testimony, and a low view of self-trust. Chapter 3 focuses on the epistemological matters of the steadfast position. This chapter maintains that steadfastness is premised on a deficient view of testimony, and an excessive view of self-trust. These two chapters show the internal deficiencies of both positions; thus, weakening their challenge against apologetics. Chapter 4 presents the position of virtue responsibilism as a satisfactory and advantageous response to the epistemology of disagreement. This response is the virtuous response to disagreement. Chapter 5 expands on the natures of two intellectual virtues: intellectual courage and open-mindedness. These two intellectual virtues are particularly relevant to the discussion of disagreement and apologetics. Chapter 6 applies the virtuous response to disagreement with experts and the challenge of religious diversity. The chapter shows that conciliation and steadfastness are unable to provide satisfactory responses to these issues, while the virtuous response presents an advantageous response for Christian apologetics. Chapter 7 summarizes the main points of the dissertation, offering practical applications as well as areas for further research.

This dissertation examines the suitability of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics for use in Christian theological and apologetic endeavors. Chapter 1 introduces basic issues in quantum physics in non-technical language and defines the basic position of the Copenhagen interpretation. Chapter 2 gives a thorough account of the core interpretational components of the Copenhagen interpretation and indicates that some of these set up potential conflict with Biblical-based Christian beliefs about God and the world He made. The chapter also discusses how famed scientists such as Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger attempted but failed to dissuade the physics and philosophy communities from adopting the Copenhagen interpretation by formulating landmark thought-experiments that aimed to expose absurdities entailed by said interpretation. Chapter 3 examines how scholars and popular-science writers have applied the Copenhagen doctrines to sociology, philosophy, and science. Topics include feminism, race relations, finance, business management, philosophy of science, epistemology, logic, and the sciences of consciousness and cosmology. Chapter 4 discusses applications of the Copenhagen interpretation in metaphysics and theology, with particular emphasis on applications in Eastern and holistic worldviews as well as debates about free-will and divine action in Christian theology. Chapter 5 attempts to show that the Copenhagen interpretation is unsuitable for adoption in Christian theological and apologetic endeavors for several reasons. First, the Copenhagen interpretation was forged by a handful of philosopher-physicists who consciously sought to ensconce indeterminism as an ontological rather than merely epistemological element of quantum theory. Second, there are several scientific and science-historical counter-indicators to the Copenhagen view. Third, several entailments of the CI run counter to important elements in the Christian worldview. Chapter 6 gives a summary assessment of the Copenhagen interpretation and suggests avenues for continuing the science-theology dialogue in light of the current state of quantum science. / This item is only available to students and faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. If you are not associated with SBTS, this dissertation may be purchased from <a href="http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb">http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb</a> or downloaded through ProQuest's Dissertation and Theses database if your institution subscribes to that service.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity International University, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 116-125).

"Thèse de doctorat présentée à la faculté des letters de Paris." / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.C.S.)--Regent College, Vancouver, B.C., 1998. / Abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-145).