Leading contemporary philosophers of religion such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga have ... more Leading contemporary philosophers of religion such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga have appealed to some sort of religious experience in defending the propriety of religious belief. Recently, best-selling atheistic books such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell have popularised new scientific explanations that suggest that religious belief is a natural product of evolution. In this paper, I sketch the views of Plantinga and Swinburne, outline some of the recent scientific explanations of religious experience and belief and discuss their possible implications for the propriety of religious belief.
Science & Christian Belief, Vol 16, No. 2 • 139 1 See Kane, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Free ... more Science & Christian Belief, Vol 16, No. 2 • 139 1 See Kane, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, New York: Oxford University Press (2002), for a recent overview of the whole field of debate. 2 Note that these same terms, compatibilism and incompatibilism, may be used to label positions in other debates e.g. about the compatibility of Christianity with a physicalist view of the person. To avoid confusion I will be using these terms only in the sense defined above. PATRICK RICHMOND Neuroscientific Determinism and the Problem of Evil
Richard Dawkins has popularised the argument that Darwinism leaves God looking unnecessary and ex... more Richard Dawkins has popularised the argument that Darwinism leaves God looking unnecessary and extremely improbable. God would have to be even more complicated than his creatures and so even more in need of explanation than they are, but no explanation is appropriate. This paper attempts to clarify the argument and examine responses to it. It investigates claims that Darwinism does not explain everything, that no explanation of God’s complexity is needed, that God’s complexity is explained in terms of factual or logical necessity, and that God is simple, not complex. None of these responses seems completely convincing. Finally it argues that God’s knowledge of the actual world can be explained in terms of his irreducible ability to choose among alternatives based on their value, and his unlimited awareness of alternatives needs no complex specification and need not be organised, statistically improbable or composed of parts.
Leading contemporary philosophers of religion such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga have ... more Leading contemporary philosophers of religion such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga have appealed to some sort of religious experience in defending the propriety of religious belief. Recently, best-selling atheistic books such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell have popularised new scientific explanations that suggest that religious belief is a natural product of evolution. In this paper, I sketch the views of Plantinga and Swinburne, outline some of the recent scientific explanations of religious experience and belief and discuss their possible implications for the propriety of religious belief.
Science & Christian Belief, Vol 16, No. 2 • 139 1 See Kane, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Free ... more Science & Christian Belief, Vol 16, No. 2 • 139 1 See Kane, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, New York: Oxford University Press (2002), for a recent overview of the whole field of debate. 2 Note that these same terms, compatibilism and incompatibilism, may be used to label positions in other debates e.g. about the compatibility of Christianity with a physicalist view of the person. To avoid confusion I will be using these terms only in the sense defined above. PATRICK RICHMOND Neuroscientific Determinism and the Problem of Evil
Richard Dawkins has popularised the argument that Darwinism leaves God looking unnecessary and ex... more Richard Dawkins has popularised the argument that Darwinism leaves God looking unnecessary and extremely improbable. God would have to be even more complicated than his creatures and so even more in need of explanation than they are, but no explanation is appropriate. This paper attempts to clarify the argument and examine responses to it. It investigates claims that Darwinism does not explain everything, that no explanation of God’s complexity is needed, that God’s complexity is explained in terms of factual or logical necessity, and that God is simple, not complex. None of these responses seems completely convincing. Finally it argues that God’s knowledge of the actual world can be explained in terms of his irreducible ability to choose among alternatives based on their value, and his unlimited awareness of alternatives needs no complex specification and need not be organised, statistically improbable or composed of parts.
Uploads
Papers by Patrick Richmond