Religious Studies 33 (1):81-92 (1997)
|Abstract||In this paper I examine two arguments, one by R. A. Oakes and the other by P. A. Byrne, that Berkeley's immaterialism is the only metaphysic consistent with classical theism. I show that not only do Oakes and Byrne fail to demonstrate the incompatibility of physical realism with classical theism, but also that their line of argument reveals a grave inconsistency between the latter and immaterialism. For as they expound Berkeley's metaphysic, it seems incapable of explicating the metaphysical dependency of finite spirit (mind) on God|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brice R. Wachterhauser (1985). The Problem of Evil and Moral Scepticism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 17 (3):167 - 174.
Robert A. Oakes (1977). Classical Theism and Pantheism: A Victory for Process Theism? Religious Studies 13 (2):167 - 173.
Patrick Fleming (2006). Berkeley's Immaterialist Account of Action. Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (3):415-429.
Ned Markosian (1995). On the Argument From Quantum Cosmology Against Theism. Analysis 55 (4):247 - 251.
William Hasker (2010). All Too Skeptical Theism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 68 (1):15-29.
David M. Woodruff (2007). Being and Doing in the Concept of God. Philosophia 35 (3-4):313-320.
Marc A. Hight (2007). Berkeley and Bodily Resurrection. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (3):443-458.
George S. Pappas (1983). Adversary Metaphysics. Philosophy Research Archives 9:571-585.
Jeff Snapper (2011). Paying the Cost of Skeptical Theism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (1):45-56.
James S. Spiegel (1996). The Theological Orthodoxy of Berkeley's Immaterialism. Faith and Philosophy 13 (2):216-235.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,190 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?