Search results for 'Katherine Rogers' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Katherine Rogers (2008). Tibetan Logic. Snow Lion Publications.score: 300.0
    Rogers takes up each of the manual's topics in turn, providing explanation and commentary, and investigates the role of reasoning in the Ge-luk-pa system of ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). The Necessity of the Present and Anselm's Eternalist Response to the Problem of Theological Fatalism. Religious Studies 43 (1):25-47.score: 100.0
    It is often argued that the eternalist solution to the freedom/foreknowledge dilemma fails. If God's knowledge of your choices is eternally fixed, your choices are necessary and cannot be free. Anselm of Canterbury proposes an eternalist view which entails that all of time is equally real and truly present to God. God's knowledge of your choices entails only a ‘consequent’ necessity which does not conflict with libertarian freedom. I argue this by showing that if consequent necessity does conflict with libertarian (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Katherin A. Rogers (2004). Augustine's Compatibilism. Religious Studies 40 (4):415-435.score: 100.0
    In analysing Augustine's views on freedom it is standard to draw two distinctions; one between an earlier emphasis on human freedom and a later insistence that God alone governs human destiny, and another between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian freedom. These distinctions are real and important, but underlying them is a more fundamental consistency. Augustine is a compatibilist from his earliest work on freedom through his final anti-Pelagian writings, and the freedom possessed by the un-fallen and the fallen will is a compatibilist (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Katherin A. Rogers (2008). Anselm on Freedom. Oxford University Press.score: 100.0
    Introduction -- Anselm's classical theism -- The Augustinian legacy -- The purpose, definition, and structure of free choice -- Alternative possibilities and primary agency -- The causes of sin and the intelligibility problem -- Creaturely freedom and God as Creator Omnium -- Grace and free will -- Foreknowledge, freedom, and eternity : part I, the problem and historical background -- Foreknowledge, freedom, and eternity : part II, Anselm's solution -- The freedom of God.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Katherin A. Rogers (1996). St. Augustine on Time and Eternity. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 70 (2):207-223.score: 100.0
  6. Katherin Rogers (2005). God and Moral Realism. International Philosophical Quarterly 45 (1):103-118.score: 100.0
    Only God, or a very god-like being, can provide both the objectivity and the normative power necessary for a really robust moral realism. Further, I argue that the classical theist position—the view of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas—that morality is grounded in the nature of God, supplies a better metaphysical background for a strong moral realism than Divine Command Theory does. I respond briefly to the criticism that belief in God can have no positive role to play in solving ethical problems, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Katherin A. Rogers (2012). The Divine Controller Argument for Incompatibilism. Faith and Philosophy 29 (3):275-294.score: 100.0
    Incompatibilists hold that, in order for you to be responsible, your choices must come from yourself; thus, determinism is incompatible with responsibility. One way of defending this claim is the Controller Argument: You are not responsible if your choices are caused by a controller, and natural determinism is relevantly similar to such control, therefore . . . Q.E.D. Compatibilists dispute both of these premises, insisting upon a relevant dissimilarity, or allowing, in a tollens move, that since we can be determined (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Katherin A. Rogers (1998). Barry Miller, a Most Unlikely God (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996) 175pp., £21.50 Sterling. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 34 (3):353-367.score: 100.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Anselmian Eternalism: The Presence of a Timeless God. Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):3-27.score: 100.0
    Anselm holds that God is timeless, time is tenseless, and humans have libertarian freedom. This combination of commitments is largely undefended incontemporary philosophy of religion. Here I explain Anselmian eternalism with its entailment of tenseless time, offer reasons for accepting it, and defend it against criticisms from William Hasker and other Open Theists. I argue that the tenseless view is coherent, that God’s eternal omniscience is consistent with libertarian freedom, that being eternal greatly enhances divine sovereignty, and that the Anselmian (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Anselmian Eternalism. Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):3-27.score: 100.0
    Anselm holds that God is timeless, time is tenseless, and humans have libertarian freedom. This combination of commitments is largely undefended incontemporary philosophy of religion. Here I explain Anselmian eternalism with its entailment of tenseless time, offer reasons for accepting it, and defend it against criticisms from William Hasker and other Open Theists. I argue that the tenseless view is coherent, that God’s eternal omniscience is consistent with libertarian freedom, that being eternal greatly enhances divine sovereignty, and that the Anselmian (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Katherin Rogers (2009). Back to Eternalism. Faith and Philosophy 26 (3):320-338.score: 100.0
    Against my interpretation, Brian Leftow argues that Anselm of Canterbury held a presentist theory of time, and that presentism can be reconciled with Anselm’s commitments concerning divine omnipotence and omniscience. I respond, focusing mainly on two issues. First, it is difficult to understand the presentist theory which Leftow attributes to Anselm. I articulate my puzzlement in a way that I hope moves the discussion forward. Second, Leftow’s examples to demonstrate that presentism can be reconciled with Anselm’s understanding of the divine (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Libertarianism in Kane and Anselm. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 81:279-290.score: 100.0
    Anselm of Canterbury is the first Christian philosopher, perhaps the first philosopher, to offer a systematic analysis of libertarian freedom. His work prefigures that of Robert Kane, and looking at the two philosophers together is helpful in understanding and appreciating the work of each of them. In this paper I show how Anselm adopts a view of choice that foreshadows Kane’s doctrine of ‘plural voluntary control.’ Kane proposes this doctrine as an attempt to answer the ‘luck’ problem. Alfred Mele criticizes (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Katherin A. Rogers (1991). Hume on Necessary Causal Connections. Philosophy 66 (258):517 - 521.score: 100.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Katherin Rogers (1993). Anselm on Praising a Necessarily Perfect Being. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 34 (1):41 - 52.score: 100.0
  15. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). God is Not the Author of Sin: An Anselmian Response to McCann. Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):300-310.score: 100.0
    Following Anselm of Canterbury I argue against Hugh McCann’s claim that a traditional, classical theist understanding of God’s relationship to creation entails that God is the cause of our choices, including our choice to sin. I explain Anselm’s thesis that God causes all that has ontological status, yet does not cause sin. Then I show that McCann’s God, if not a sinner, must nonetheless be an unloving deceiver, McCann’s theodicy fails on its own terms, his proposed requirements for moral authenticity (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Katherin Rogers (2011). Defending Boethius. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (2):241-257.score: 100.0
    Among those who study medieval philosophy there is a divide between historians and philosophers. Sometimes the historians chide the philosophers for failing to appreciate the historical factors at work in understanding a text, a philosopher, a school, or a system. But sometimes the philosopher may justly criticize the historian for failing to engage the past philosopher adequately as a philosopher. Here I defend a philosophically charitable methodology and offer two examples, taken from John Marenbon’s book Boethius, as instances where exercising (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Katherin Rogers (2007). Anselm and His Islamic Contempories on Divine Necessity and Eternity. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 81 (3):373-393.score: 100.0
    Anselm holds that God is simple, eternal, and immutable, and that He creates “necessarily”—He “must” create this world. Avicenna and Averroes made the same claims, and derived as entailments that God neither knows singulars nor interacts with the spatio-temporal universe. I argue that Anselm avoids these unpalatableconsequences by being the first philosopher to adopt, clearly and consciously, a four-dimensionalist understanding of time, in which all of time is genuinely present to divine eternity. This enables him to defend the divine perfections (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Katherin A. Rogers (2005). Anselm on Eudaemonism and the Hierarchical Structure of Moral Choice. Religious Studies 41 (3):249-268.score: 100.0
    Because Anselm of Canterbury argues that the morally responsible created agent must have the option to choose between justice and benefit, many scholars conclude that he is a proto-Kantian, pitting duty against self-interest and natural inclination. This is mistaken. Anselm proposes a hierarchical schema, prefiguring that of Harry Frankfurt, in which the inclination for justice constitutes a second-order desire that one's first-order desires for benefits should be moderated to conform to God's will. I defend this interpretation through careful textual analysis, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). God is Not the Author of Sin. Faith and Philosophy 24 (3):300-310.score: 100.0
    Following Anselm of Canterbury I argue against Hugh McCann’s claim that a traditional, classical theist understanding of God’s relationship to creation entails that God is the cause of our choices, including our choice to sin. I explain Anselm’s thesis that God causes all that has ontological status, yet does not cause sin. Then I show that McCann’s God, if not a sinner, must nonetheless be an unloving deceiver, McCann’s theodicy fails on its own terms, his proposed requirements for moral authenticity (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Katherin A. Rogers (1996). Omniscience, Eternity, and Freedom. International Philosophical Quarterly 36 (4):399-412.score: 100.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Katherin A. Rogers (2012). Anselm on the Ontological Status of Choice. International Philosophical Quarterly 52 (2):183-197.score: 100.0
    If God is the cause of everything that has any sort of existence at all, where is there room in the universe for rational creatures to have freedom of will? Isn’t a choice made by a created agent a sort of thing, and hence made by God? But if God causes our choices, how are we responsible such that we can be appropriately praised and blamed? Call this the dilemma of created freedom and divine omnipotence. Anselm solves the dilemma by (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Jeffrey Green & Katherin Rogers (2012). Time, Foreknowledge, and Alternative Possibilities. Religious Studies 48 (2):151 - 164.score: 100.0
    In this article we respond to arguments from William Hasker and David Kyle Johnson that free will is incompatible with both divine foreknowledge and eternalism (what we refer to as isotemporalism). In particular, we sketch an Anselmian account of time and freedom, briefly defend the view against Hasker's critique, and then respond in more depth to Johnson's claim that Anselmian freedom is incompatible with free will because it entails that our actions are 'ontologically necessary'. In defending Anselmian freedom we argue (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Katherin A. Rogers (2003). Does God Cause Sin? Faith and Philosophy 20 (3):371-378.score: 100.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Katherin A. Rogers (1993). The Medieval Approach to Aardvarks, Escalators, and God. Journal of Value Inquiry 27 (1):63-68.score: 100.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). A Clone by Any Other Name. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):247-255.score: 100.0
    The possibility of cloning human beings raises the difficult question: Which human lives have value and deserve legal protection? Current cloning legislation tries to hide the problem by illegitimately renaming the entities and processes in question. The Delaware cloning bill, (SB55 2003/2004) for example, permits and protects the creation of human embryos by cloning, as long as they will be destroyed for research and therapeutic purposes, but it adopts terminology which renders its import unclear. I show that, in the case (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Katherin A. Rogers (2011). Anselm Against McCann On God and Sin. Faith and Philosophy 28 (4):397-415.score: 100.0
    Hugh McCann argues that God wills human sin, that humans are nonetheless significantly free, and that his position provides a satisfying theodicy of sin. I defend an Anselmian view: Although God causes the existence of all that exists, He does not produce sin. Human beings are the ultimate sources of their sinning, which sinning should not happen. McCann rejoins that my position is incoherent and that my criticisms are not well taken. I respond, clarifying Anselm’s understanding of human freedom, revisiting (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Katherin A. Rogers (2000). A Defense of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo Argument. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 74:187-200.score: 100.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Retribution, Forgiveness, and the Character Creation Theory of Punishment. Social Theory and Practice 33 (1):75-103.score: 100.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Katherin A. Rogers (2001). What's Wrong with Occasionalism? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 75 (3):345-369.score: 100.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Katherin A. Rogers (2008). Evidence for God From Certainty. Faith and Philosophy 25 (1):31-46.score: 100.0
    Human beings can have “strongly certain” beliefs—indubitable, veridical beliefs with a unique phenomenology—about necessarily true propositions like 2+2=4. On the plausible assumption that mathematical entities are platonic abstracta, naturalist theories fail to provide an adequate causal explanation for such beliefs because they cannot show how the propositional content of the causally inert abstracta can figure in a chain of physical causes. Theories which explain such beliefs as “corresponding” to the abstracta, but without any causal relationship, entail impossibilities. God, or a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Katherin A. Rogers (2002). The Abolition of Sin. Faith and Philosophy 19 (1):69-84.score: 100.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Katherin A. Rogers (1999). David O'Connor God and Inscrutable Evil: In Defence of Theism and Atheism. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998). Pp. XIII+273. £53 Hbk, £19.95 Pbk. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 35 (2):229-240.score: 100.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Katherin A. Rogers (2012). Christ Our Brother. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 86 (2):223-236.score: 100.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Katherin A. Rogers (2010). Incarnation. In Charles Taliaferro & Chad V. Meister (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology. Cambridge University Press.score: 100.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Katherin A. Rogers (2008). God, Time, and Freedom. In Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Blackwell Pub..score: 100.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Katherin A. Rogers (2010). Pt. 2. God in Relation to Creation. Incarnation. In Charles Taliaferro & Chad V. Meister (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology. Cambridge University Press.score: 100.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Katherin A. Rogers (2012). Freedom, Science and Religion. In Yujin Nagasawa (ed.), Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan. 237.score: 80.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Katherin A. Rogers (1992). Personhood, Potentiality, and the Temporarily Comatose Patient. Public Affairs Quarterly 6 (2):245-254.score: 80.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Katherin A. Rogers (2013). The Incarnation As Action Composite. Faith and Philosophy 30 (3):251-270.score: 80.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Katherin A. Rogers (2013). Anselm's Perfect God. In Jeanine Diller & Asa Kasher (eds.), Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Springer. 133--140.score: 80.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Katherin A. Rogers (2007). Freedom, Will, and Nature. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 81:279-290.score: 80.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Katherin Rogers (2006). Peter van Inwagen (Ed.) Christian Faith and The Problem of Evil. (Grand Rapids MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004). Pp. Xiv+316. ISBN 0 8028 2697 0. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 42 (1):111-116.score: 80.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Tom Sorell & G. A. J. Rogers (eds.) (2005). Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy. Oxford University Press.score: 60.0
    Philosophy written in English is overwhelmingly analytic philosophy, and the techniques and predilections of analytic philosophy are not only unhistorical but anti-historical, and hostile to textual commentary. Analytic usually aspires to a very high degree of clarity and precision of formulation and argument, and it often seeks to be informed by, and consistent with, current natural science. In an earlier era, analytic philosophy aimed at agreement with ordinary linguistic intuitions or common sense beliefs, or both. All (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Janine Marie Idziak (2009). Katherin Rogers, Anselm on Freedom. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (3):171-175.score: 60.0
  45. Thomas Williams (2009). Review of Katherin Rogers, Anselm on Freedom. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2009 (2).score: 60.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. William Hasker (2009). Katherin A. Rogers Anselm on Freedom . (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Pp. 217. £40.00 (Hbk). Isbn 978 0 19 923167. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 45 (4):499-504.score: 50.0
  47. John Marenbon (2000). Katherin A. Rogers the Anselmian Approach to God and Creation (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997) Studies in History of Philosophy, 44. Pp. VII + 261. Katherin A. Rogers the Neoplatonic Metaphysics and Epistemology of Anselm of Canterbury. (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1997). Studies in History of Philosophy, 45. Pp. 268. [REVIEW] Religious Studies 36 (4):489-504.score: 50.0
  48. J. H. Muirhead (1936). Aesthetic and Psychology. By Charles Mauron. Translated From the French by Roger Fry and Katherine John. (London: Hogarth Press. 1935. Pp. 110. Price 4s. 6d.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 11 (42):222-.score: 50.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Michael W. Tkacz (2010). Katherin A. Rogers, Anselm on Freedom Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 30 (3):217-219.score: 50.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000