<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Robert Adams on No Rush</title><link>https://norush.cc/en/tags/robert-adams/</link><description>Recent content in Robert Adams on No Rush</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.146.0</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://norush.cc/en/tags/robert-adams/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Questions on Robert Adams’ Legacy: Faith Experience and the Epistemological Responsibility Threshold</title><link>https://norush.cc/en/posts/questions_on_robert_adams_legacy_faith_experience_and_the_epistemological_responsibility_threshold/</link><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://norush.cc/en/posts/questions_on_robert_adams_legacy_faith_experience_and_the_epistemological_responsibility_threshold/</guid><description>&lt;p>&lt;em>Note: This text was translated from the Russian original by AI.&lt;/em>&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Robert Adams&amp;rsquo; work—his Divine Command Theory and defense of &amp;lsquo;critical realism&amp;rsquo;—represents an ambitious attempt to ground the objectivity of theistic ethics. In particular, his work &lt;em>The Virtue of Faith&lt;/em>, specifically Chapter 7, which addresses ethical wrongness in light of a modified divine command theory, merits detailed analysis. However, upon close examination of these theses, fundamental structural vulnerabilities emerge. This discussion note examines an epistemological dead end that renders the logic of justification internally inconsistent.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>