In Defense of Naïve Universalism

Faith and Philosophy 20 (3):345-363 (2003)
Authors
Daniel Howard-Snyder
Western Washington University
Abstract
Michael J. Murray defends the traditional doctrine of hell by arguing directly against its chief competitor, universalism. Universalism, says Murray, comes in “naïve” and “sophisticated” forms. Murray poses two arguments against naïve universalism before focusing on sophisticated universalism, which is his real target. He proceeds in this fashion because he thinks that his arguments against sophisticated universalism are more easily motivated against naïve universalism, and once their force is clearly seen in the naïve case they will be more clearly seen in the sophisticated. In this essay, I argue that Murray’s arguments against naïve universalism have no force whatsoever.
Keywords hell  Christianity  universalism  Michael Murray  heaven
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/faithphil200320346
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
193 ( #31,317 of 2,312,743 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #21,614 of 2,312,743 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature