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

Displaying: 1-10 of 1638 documents


articles
1. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
Kyla Ebels-Duggan Love (of God) as a Middle Way between Dogmatism and Hyper-Rationalism in Ethics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In the Groundwork Kant asserts that the fundamental moral principle must be a principle of autonomy. He dismisses theistic principles, along with all other competitors to his Categorical Imperative, claiming that they are heteronomous. I argue that the best case for this Kantian conclusion conflates our access to the reasons for our commitments with an ability to state these reasons such that they could figure in an argument. This conflation, in turn, results from a certain Kantian conception of inclination, and its role in our moral psychology. These are views that we ought to reject. Having done so, we will see that a theistic ethics based on desire or love for God need not face a distinctive problem of heteronomy.
2. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
Joshua Cockayne, David Efird Common Worship
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
People of faith, particularly in the Judeo-Christian tradition, worship corporately at least as often, if not more so, than they do individually. Why do they do this? There are, of course, many reasons, some having to do with personal preference and others having to do with the theology of worship. But, in this paper, we explore one reason, a philosophical reason, which, despite recent work on the philosophy of liturgy, has gone underappreciated. In particular, we argue that corporate worship enables a person to come to know God better than they would otherwise know him in individual worship.
3. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
Anthony Bolos A Functionalist Account of Human Uniqueness
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
I challenge the assumption that human uniqueness of the sort motivated by the doctrine of the imago Dei is incompatible with contemporary views in evolutionary biology. I first develop a functionalist account of the image of God and then argue that image bearing is a contingently imposed function. Humans, chosen by God to bear his image, are unique in that they alone possess an ideal range of image bearing capacities. This ideal range makes humans well-suited for the role of image bearing.
4. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
Perry Hendricks How To Be a Skeptical Theist and a Commonsense Epistemologist
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Trent Dougherty has argued that commonsense epistemology and skeptical theism are incompatible. In this paper, I explicate Dougherty’s argument, and show that (at least) one popular form of skeptical theism is compatible with commonsense epistemology.
5. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
William Hasker Can a Latin Trinity Be Social? A Response to Scott M. Williams
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Scott Williams’s Latin Social model of the Trinity holds that the trinitarian persons have between them a single set of divine mental powers and a single set of divine mental acts. He claims, nevertheless, that on his view the persons are able to use indexical pronouns such as “I.” This claim is examined and is found to be mistaken.
6. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
Merold Westphal Reply to Eleanor Helms on Faith Versus Reason in Kierkegaard
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Two reasons are given for speaking of “reason” even where Kierkegaard’s pseudonym, Climacus, speaks of “understanding.” First, we are dealing with a significant contribution to a centuries-old discussion of an issue that goes by the name of “faith and reason.” Second, whereas Kant and Hegel sharply distinguish mere understanding from reason, no such distinction is at work in Kierkegaard’s text. At issue is the quite different distinction of unaided human reason and divine revelation. It is not just any notion of reason that is the target of Kierkegaard’s critique, but an autonomous reason, independent of revelation, that claims hegemony over biblical faith in both its popular and academic forms. This hegemony expresses itself in both outright rejection of and radical reinterpretation of elements of biblical faith.
book reviews
7. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
Kevin Timpe Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil, by Guillaume Bignon
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
8. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 3
Dolores G. Morris Paradise Understood: New Philosophical Essays About Heaven, edited by T. Ryan Byerly and Eric J. Silverman
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
articles
9. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 2
David Vander Laan The Paradox of the End without End
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In much of Christian thought humans are taken to have an ultimate end, understood as the highest attainable good. Christians also anticipate “the life everlasting.” Together these ideas generate a paradox. If the end can be reached in a finite amount of time, some longer-lasting state will be better still, so the purported end is not the highest good after all. But if the end is to possess some good forever, then it will never be reached. So it seems an everlasting being cannot have an ultimate end—a conclusion that apparently makes human life pointless. How can the paradox be solved?
10. Faith and Philosophy: Volume > 35 > Issue: 2
Brian Leftow Presentism, Atemporality, and Time’s Way
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
After defining presentism, I consider four arguments that presentism and divine atemporality are incompatible. I identify an assumption common to the four, ask what reason there is to consider it true, and argue against it.