This article argues for foundational or circularly justified reasoning in theology and philosophy, highlighting its parallels with mathematics.
This article supports the epistemological claim that sound human reasoning about ultimate knowledge is either foundational or circularly justified. In particular, questions which naturally arise in theology, philosophy, and related disciplines, to the extent that they rationally treat ultimate knowledge, are necessarily supported in one of these ways. Comparisons with, contrasts to, and analogies from mathematics are given to illustrate and enhance this central claim.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chad R. Mangum (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: