Graduate studies at Western
Religious Studies 40 (2):165-179 (2004)
|Abstract||The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) says that, necessarily, every contingently true proposition has an explanation. The PSR is the most controversial premise in the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is likely that one reason why a number of philosophers reject the PSR is that they think there are conceptual counter-examples to it. For instance, they may think, with Peter van Inwagen, that the conjunction of all contingent propositions cannot have an explanation, or they may believe that quantum mechanical phenomena cannot be explained. It may, however, be that these philosophers would be open to accepting a restricted version of the PSR as long as it was not ad hoc. I present a natural restricted version of the PSR that avoids all conceptual counter-examples, and yet that is strong enough to ground a cosmological argument. The restricted PSR says that all explainable true propositions have explanations. (Published Online April 21 2004).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brandon C. Look (2011). Grounding the Principle of Sufficient Reason: Leibnizian Rationalism Versus the Humean Challenge. In Carlos Fraenkel, Dario Perinetti & Justin Smith (eds.), The Rationalists: Between Tradition and Revolution. Springer.
Alexander R. Pruss (2006). The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment. Cambridge University Press.
David Alexander (2008). The Recent Revival of Cosmological Arguments. Philosophy Compass 3 (3):541–550.
Kevin Davey & Rob Clifton (2001). Insufficient Reason in the ‘New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 37 (4):485-490.
Mark T. Nelson (1996). The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Moral Argument. Religious Studies 32 (1):15-26.
Michael Della Rocca (2010). PSR. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (07).
Anthony Brueckner (2001). Van Inwagen on the Cosmological Argument. Philosophical Papers 30 (1):31-40.
Graham Oppy (2000). On ‘a New Cosmological Argument’. Religious Studies 36 (3):345-353.
Richard M. Gale & Alexander R. Pruss (2002). A Response to Oppy, and to Davey and Clifton. Religious Studies 38 (1):89-99.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads96 ( #8,517 of 722,940 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,098 of 722,940 )
How can I increase my downloads?