Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-13 of 13 documents


articles

1. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Mark Murphy

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
2. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Michael L. Peterson

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
3. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Ted Poston

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper articulates a way to ground a relatively high prior probability for grand explanatory theories apart from an appeal to simplicity. I explore the possibility of enumerating the space of plausible grand theories of the universe by using the explanatory properties of possible views to limit the number of plausible theories. I motivate this alternative grounding by showing that Swinburne’s appeal to simplicity is problematic along several dimensions. I then argue that there are three plausible grand views—theism, atheism, and axiarchism—which satisfy explanatory requirements for plau­sibility. Other possible views lack the explanatory virtue of these three theo­ries. Consequently, this explanatory grounding provides a way of securing a nontrivial prior probability for theism, atheism, and axiarchism. An important upshot of my approach is that a modest amount of empirical evidence can bear significantly on the posterior probability of grand theories of the universe.
4. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Blake McAlister

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Whether evil provides evidence against the existence of God, and to what degree, depends on how things seem to the subject—i.e., on one’s perspective. I explain three ways in which adopting an atheistic perspective can increase support for atheism via considerations of evil. The first is by intensifying the common sense problem of evil by making evil seem gratuitous or intrinsically wrong to allow. The second is by diminishing the apparent fit between theism and our observations of evil. The third is by lowering the initial plausibility of theism. I call this “the perspectival problem of evil” and argue that skeptical theism does not fully address it.
5. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Felipe Miguel

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Suppose that you realize that a substantial majority of the most important philosophers of all time agreed with you on some proposition p. Intuitively, you have gained additional evidence in favor of p and you should increase your confidence that p is true. It turns out that a large number of the most important philosophers of all time (in fact, the vast majority, if we consider, as we will, a recent poll conducted with contemporary philosophers) were the­ists. In this paper, I explore the epistemic significance of agreement with these philosophers with respect to their theistic beliefs. I argue that agreement with such philosophers does provide evidence in favor of theism.
6. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
A. G. Holdier Orcid-ID

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The concept of service found in Christian theism and related religious per­spectives offers robust support for a political defense of nonhuman animal rights, both in the eschaton and in the present state. By adapting the political theory defended by Donaldson and Kymlicka to contemporary theological models of the afterlife and of human agency, I defend a picture of heaven as a harmoniously structured society where humans are the functional lead­ers of a multifaceted, interspecies citizenry. Consequently, orthodox religious believers (concerned with promoting God’s will “on Earth as it is in Heaven”) have a duty to promote and protect the interests of nonhuman creatures in the present, premortem state.
7. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Tien-Chun Lo Orcid-ID

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper, I will defend a strategy for employing perfect being theology that Jeff Speaks calls “restriction strategy.” In Section I, I will outline what the restriction strategy is and explicate Speaks’s objection to it. In Section II, I will propose a response to Speaks’s objection. In Section III, the response will be refined to avoid objections. My contention will be that this refined version of perfect being theology avoids Speaks’s objection, and therefore can help theists find what divine attributes God has.

review essay

8. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Joshua Thurow, Jada Twedt Strabbing

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In Atonement, Eleonore Stump develops a novel and compelling Thomistic account of the atonement and argues that Anselmian interpretations must be rejected. In this review essay, after summarizing her account, we raise wor­ries about some aspects of it. First, we respond to her primary objection to Anselmian interpretations by arguing that, contrary to Stump, love does not require unilateral and unconditional forgiveness. Second, we suggest that the heart of Anselmian interpretations—that reconciliation with God requires rep­aration/restitution/satisfaction—is plausible and well-supported by some of her own arguments. Third, we raise doubts about her views of the role of sur­render in justification and the nature of justification itself. Finally, we question whether Stump’s account can successfully explain how the atonement deals with pre-justification sin. A central theme of our comments is that Stump’s Thomistic interpretation can be entwined with Anselmian interpretations to make a stronger account of the atonement.

book reviews

9. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Alan J. Pihringer

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
10. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Greg Peterson

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
11. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Andrew M. Bailey

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
12. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Louise Williams

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
13. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 37 > Issue: 4
Mark S. McLeod-Harrison Orcid-ID

view |  rights & permissions | cited by