Hartshorne's Arguments Against Empirical Evidence for Necessary Existence: An Evaluation: GALEN A. JOHNSON

Religious Studies 13 (2):175-187 (1977)

Authors
Galen A. Johnson
University of Rhode Island
Abstract
Is experiential evidence irrelevant to acceptance or rejection of belief in the existence of a Divine Being? Charles Hartshorne answers that it is indeed irrelevant, and this answer has an initial and, for me, continuing surprising ring to it. Specifically, Hartshorne makes two distinguishable claims: the traditional allegedly a posteriori arguments, the teleological and cosmological, are in fact incompatible with empiricist methodology and are disguised ontological arguments; the conception of God as necessary being demands that belief in such a being's existence or non-existence in no way depend upon empirical evidence. On the contrary, I shall argue, first, that empirical evidence for God is truly empirical and second, that there is no incompatibility between empirical evidence and necessary existence. My argument will involve an attempt to understand and clarify somewhat the very difficult concepts of ‘experience’ and ‘necessity’ as they arise in the context of religious epistemology. I wish to make clear at the outset that my aim is not to eliminate ontological arguments for God in favour of empirical arguments, for I believe that Hartshorne's work on the modal ontological argument contributes substantially to providing grounds for reasonable belief in theism. Rather, my purpose is to show that ontological and empirical patterns of theistic argumentation are neither incompatible with each other nor reducible to each other
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0034412500009963
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,607
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

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Problem of Evil.Michael P. Levine - 1999 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 1999:127-146.
On the Indispensability of the Distinctively Mathematical.C. Juhl - 2012 - Philosophia Mathematica 20 (3):324-338.
Empirical Evidence for Rationalism?Joel Pust - 2014 - In Darrell Rowbottom & Anthony Booth (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
What Does the Second Form of the Ontological Argument Prove?H. Jong Kim - 2004 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56 (1):17 - 40.
Simplicity and Theology.Don Fawkes & Tom Smythe - 1996 - Religious Studies 32 (2):259 - 270.
Cartesian Knowledge and Confirmation.Joel Pust - 2007 - Journal of Philosophy 104 (6):269-289.
Helmets or Not? Use Science Correctly.Paul Trégouët - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (8):718-719.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-05

Total views
25 ( #305,908 of 2,325,373 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #175,221 of 2,325,373 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature