Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

In Defence of Anthropomorphic Theism

Peter Forrest

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

I reply to seven objections to anthropomorphic theism: (1) That anthropomorphic theism is idolatrous. In reply I rely on the concept/conception distinction. (2) That faith requires certainty. In reply I argue that full belief may be based on probable inference. (3) That the truly infinite is incomprehensible. In reply I distinguish two senses of knowing what you mean. (4) 'You Kant say that!' In reply I distinguish shallow from deep Kantianism. (5) 'Shall Old Aquinas be forgot?' In reply I discuss the simplicity of God. (6) What those garrulous mystics say about the ineffable. In reply I argue that mystics should be anthropomorphites. (7) Anti-theodicy. In reply I distinguish the community of all agents from the community of finite frail agents.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-122
JournalEuropean Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Volume3
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Keywords

  • Philosophy of Religion

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'In Defence of Anthropomorphic Theism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this