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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 105-122 |
| Journal | European Journal for Philosophy of Religion |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 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
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver