The Need for Thisnesses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171
Author(s):  
William Hasker ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Richard Swinburne

Richard Swinburne is an emergent dualist. One feature of his view is the need for a “thisness” or haecceity that makes each soul the soul that it is, distinct from other souls that may be indistinguishable from it in all qualitative respects. I argue that there is no need for thisnesses.

Swinburne's Space and TimeSpace and Time. Richard Swinburne

1976 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 618-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  
Richard Swinburne

Is theism a simple hypothesis? The simplicity of omni-properties

2015 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
CALUM MILLER
Keyword(s):  
Simple Theory ◽  
Ceteris Paribus ◽  
Simple Hypothesis ◽  
Richard Swinburne ◽  
In Virtue Of

AbstractOne reason for thinking that theism is a relatively simple theory – and that it is thereby more likely to be true than other theories,ceteris paribus – is to insist that infinite degrees of properties are simpler than extremely large, finite degrees of properties. This defence of theism has been championed by Richard Swinburne in recent years. I outline the objections to this line of argument present in the literature, and suggest some novel resources open to Swinburne in defence. I then argue that scientists' preference for universal nomological propositions constitutes a very strong reason for supposing that theism is simpler than parodical alternatives in virtue of its positing omni-properties rather than parallel ‘mega-properties’.

Mind, Brain, and Free Will, by Richard Swinburne

Mind ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (493) ◽  
pp. 387-390
Author(s):  
B. Berofsky
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Richard Swinburne

Faith and Goodness

1989 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 167-191
Author(s):  
Eleonore Stump
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Religious Belief ◽  
The Other ◽  
Alvin Plantinga ◽  
Belief In God ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Richard Swinburne ◽  
The Relationship

Recent work on the subject of faith has tended to focus on the epistemology of religious belief, considering such issues as whether beliefs held in faith are rational and how they may be justified. Richard Swinburne, for example, has developed an intricate explanation of the relationship between the propositions of faith and the evidence for them. Alvin Plantinga, on the other hand, has maintained that belief in God may be properly basic, that is, that a belief that God exists can be part of the foundation of a rational noetic structure. This sort of work has been useful in drawing attention to significant issues in the epistemology of religion, but these approaches to faith seem to me also to deepen some long-standing perplexities about traditional Christian views of faith.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Matthew Levering
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Historical Inquiry ◽  
Historical Evidence ◽  
Human Reason ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Richard Swinburne ◽  
The Church

The Introduction explains the basic outline of the book’s threefold argument for the credibility of Jesus’ Resurrection: historical evidence derived from the New Testament witness, the strangeness of the claim, and the revelation of supreme love in a manner that shows the unity of the Scriptures. Second, it explores “participatory” knowledge and the limits of historiography. Jesus is best learned about from within the Church. Third, the Introduction responds to Troeltsch’s influential claim that historical inquiry can only involve “normal” happenings; anything else belongs to the realm of “faith.” Fourth, the Introduction presents the plan of the book. Fifth, it reviews various reasons why scholars think that the enterprise of arguing for the reasonableness of Jesus’ Resurrection is an unnecessary or doomed enterprise. Sixth, it concludes by treating theological apologetics and human reason. Two exemplars are highlighted: Richard Swinburne and Gerald O’Collins.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document