11 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Andrew Gleeson [11]Andrew Hampton Gleeson [5]
  1. Andrew Gleeson (forthcoming). On Letting Go of Theodicy: Marilyn McCord Adams on God and Evil. Sophia:1-12.
    Marilyn McCord Adams agrees with D. Z. Phillips that instrumental theodicy is a moral failure, and that sceptical theists and others are guilty of ignoring what we know now (in this life) about the moral reality of horrendous evils to speculate about unknown ways these evils might be made sense of. In place of theodicy, Adams advocates ‘the logic of compensation’ for the victims of evil, a postmortem healing of divine intimacy with God. This goes so deep, she believes, that (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Andrew Gleeson (2013). A Frightening Love: Replies to Bishop and Mintoff. [REVIEW] Sophia 52 (1):55-59.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Andrew Gleeson (2013). 'Philosophy, Ethics, and a Common Humanity: Essays in Honour of Raimond Gaita', Edited by Christopher Cordner. [REVIEW] Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (1):193-196.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Andrew Gleeson (2012). A a Frightening Love: Recasting the Problem of Evil. Palgrave Macmillan.
    The greater good -- The intellectual and the existential -- The problem of evil and the problem of the slightest toothache -- The God of love -- Is God an agent? -- The real God.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Andrew Gleeson (2012). God and Evil: A View From Swansea. Philosophical Investigations 35 (3-4):331-349.
    Herbert McCabe and Brian Davies defend an Aquinas-inspired, anti-anthropomorphic natural theology that emphasises the mysterious distance between the Creator and his creation. This theology gives rise to a powerful response to the problem of evil, powerful enough to scuttle the academic problem of evil that is based on a confused anthropomorphic understanding of God. But that does not dispose of the problem of evil per se. The McCabe–Davies natural theology can succeed only by appropriating a personal understanding of “the ultimate (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Andrew Gleeson (2011). The Problem of Evil and the Problem of the Slightest Toothache. Heythrop Journal.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Andrew Gleeson (2010). More on the Power of God: A Rejoinder to William Hasker. Sophia 49 (4):617-629.
    In ‘The Power of God’ (Gleeson 2010) I elaborate and defend an argument by the late D.Z. Phillips against definitions of omnipotence in terms of logical possibility. In ‘Which God? What Power? A Response to Andrew Gleeson’ (Hasker 2010), William Hasker criticizes my defense of Phillips’ argument. Here I contend his criticisms do not succeed. I distinguish three definitions of omnipotence in terms of logical possibility. Hasker agrees that the first fails. The second fails because negative properties (like disembodiedment and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Andrew Gleeson (2010). The Power of God. Sophia 49 (4):603-616.
    Much contemporary analytic philosophy understands the power of God as belonging to the same logical space as the power of human beings: a power of efficient causation taken to the maximum limit. This anthropomorphic picture is often explicated in terms of God’s capacity to bring about any logically possible state of affairs, so-called omnipotence. D.Z. Phillips criticized this position in his last book, The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. I defend Phillips’s argument against recent criticism by William (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Andrew Gleeson (2007). Moral Particularism Reconfigured. Philosophical Investigations 30 (4):363–380.
    The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Andrew Gleeson (2005). Pettit on Consequentialism and Universalizability. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26 (3):261-275.
    Philip Pettit has argued that universalizability entails consequentialism. I criticise the argument for relying on a question-begging reading of the impartiality of universalization. A revised form of the argument can be constructed by relying on preference-satisfaction rationality, rather than on impartiality. But this revised argument succumbs to an ambiguity in the notion of a preference (or desire). I compare the revised argument to an earlier argument of Pettit’s for consequentialism that appealed to the theoretical virtue of simplicity, and I raise (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Andrew Gleeson (2001). Animal Animation. Philosophia 28 (1-4):137-169.
    The original publication can be found at www.springerlink.com.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation