- Analytic History of Philosophy, Analytic Philosophy of Religion, Systematic Theology, Patristic Studies, Analytic Theology, Philosophical Theology, and 18 morePatristics, Greek Patristics, Latin Patristics, Historical Theology, Patristic Theology, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, Boethius, Trinity, Trinity (Theology), Trinitarian Theology, Doctrine of the Trinity, Tertullian, Patristics and Late Antiquity, Early Church Fathers, St Basil the Great, and Lutheran Theologyedit
Research Interests:
Рационализм и иррационализм в античной философии / В.П. Горан, М.Н. Вольф, И.В. Берестов, Е.В. Орлов, Е.В. Афонасин, П.А. Бутаков. Новосибирск: 2010. 396 с. (Rationalism and Irrationalism in Ancient Philosophy / V. Goran, M. Volf, I. Berestov, E. Orlov, E. Afonasin, P. Butakov. Novosibirsk, 2010)more
"The book includes a series of studies dedicated to two opposite tendencies in Ancient Greek epistemology and ontology, the rational and irrational. Vasily Goran discusses the rational and irrational approaches in Ancient philosophy in... more
"The book includes a series of studies dedicated to two opposite tendencies in Ancient Greek epistemology and ontology, the rational and irrational. Vasily Goran discusses the rational and irrational approaches in Ancient philosophy in two contexts. In Chapter I he studies Early Greek philosophy, while in Chapter IV he turns to Socrates and Plato. He shows that ontological monism in such early writers as Thales and other representatives of the Ionian school of thought, led them to take explicitly rationalistic stanza, while (proto-)dualist tendencies in Early Pythagoreanism became the nourishing soil for irrationalism. Socrates’ predominantly rationalist approach to philosophical inquiry is contrasted with this by Plato, marked by distinctive irrational elements. Still, one can prove that the rational approaches were dominant both in Early Pythagoreanism and Plato.
Chapter II by Marina Volf concerns the epistemological doctrine of Heraclitus of Ephesus. The author discusses his concept of dizesis (taken to mean inquiry), cognitive means for acquiring true knowledge as well as their hierarchy: relations between manifest (emphanes) and latent (haphanes) entities, the role of empiric knowledge, and the place of mathesis, ksynesis and phronesis in the cognitive process. We examine the relationship between such intellectual faculties as noos and ksynesis, noos and mathesis, and reveal essentially rationalistic nature of Heraclitan doctrine.
In Chapter III Igor Berestov deals with two modes of thinking in Parmenides. If Parmenides did distinguish the two modes of thinking, then his position would be immune to some very serious critical attacks. Nevertheless, it appears that there are some logical difficulties, inherent in this distinction. And even if this is the case, the alternative “non-Parmenidean” distinctions between the modes of thinking and existence seem to be as dubious as the supposed Parmenidean approach.
Chapter V by Eugene Orlov analyses cognitive faculties and states of the soul. Aristotelian notions of logismos-calculus, logos and alogon are discussed against the contemporary perception of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ with special reference to the so called meta-logou, which cannot be placed in the context of such traditional concepts as rational, irrational, non-rational and a-rational.
In Chapter VI Eugene Afonasin approaches philosophical mythology in the Derveni papyrus which contains a very curious commentary to an Orphic theogony and in this capacity is of great interest for understanding religious and philosophical developments at the end of the fourth – the beginning of the third century B. C. E. (or even earlier). The author discusses two interpretative strategies adopted by the Derveni commentator in order to “save” the Orphic myth and give it new value, namely, naturalization” of traditional Greek deities, first of all Zeus, and “etymologization” of their names.
Finally, in Chapter VII Pavel Butakov shows that the formation of Christian philosophy happened in the world where the highest academic standards of theology were set by the Platonic tradition. The mainstream Christian theologians formulated their teaching within the framework of Platonic thought, while those who used other philosophical approaches were considered to be erring or even heretical. A good example of such an unconventional approach can be seen in the teaching of Tertullian who built his theology, ontology, and anthropology upon the foundation of Stoicism. Unfortunately, many Christian theologians, who were oriented towards Platonism, interpreted Tertullian’s Stoic ideas as a digression from the true faith."
Chapter II by Marina Volf concerns the epistemological doctrine of Heraclitus of Ephesus. The author discusses his concept of dizesis (taken to mean inquiry), cognitive means for acquiring true knowledge as well as their hierarchy: relations between manifest (emphanes) and latent (haphanes) entities, the role of empiric knowledge, and the place of mathesis, ksynesis and phronesis in the cognitive process. We examine the relationship between such intellectual faculties as noos and ksynesis, noos and mathesis, and reveal essentially rationalistic nature of Heraclitan doctrine.
In Chapter III Igor Berestov deals with two modes of thinking in Parmenides. If Parmenides did distinguish the two modes of thinking, then his position would be immune to some very serious critical attacks. Nevertheless, it appears that there are some logical difficulties, inherent in this distinction. And even if this is the case, the alternative “non-Parmenidean” distinctions between the modes of thinking and existence seem to be as dubious as the supposed Parmenidean approach.
Chapter V by Eugene Orlov analyses cognitive faculties and states of the soul. Aristotelian notions of logismos-calculus, logos and alogon are discussed against the contemporary perception of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ with special reference to the so called meta-logou, which cannot be placed in the context of such traditional concepts as rational, irrational, non-rational and a-rational.
In Chapter VI Eugene Afonasin approaches philosophical mythology in the Derveni papyrus which contains a very curious commentary to an Orphic theogony and in this capacity is of great interest for understanding religious and philosophical developments at the end of the fourth – the beginning of the third century B. C. E. (or even earlier). The author discusses two interpretative strategies adopted by the Derveni commentator in order to “save” the Orphic myth and give it new value, namely, naturalization” of traditional Greek deities, first of all Zeus, and “etymologization” of their names.
Finally, in Chapter VII Pavel Butakov shows that the formation of Christian philosophy happened in the world where the highest academic standards of theology were set by the Platonic tradition. The mainstream Christian theologians formulated their teaching within the framework of Platonic thought, while those who used other philosophical approaches were considered to be erring or even heretical. A good example of such an unconventional approach can be seen in the teaching of Tertullian who built his theology, ontology, and anthropology upon the foundation of Stoicism. Unfortunately, many Christian theologians, who were oriented towards Platonism, interpreted Tertullian’s Stoic ideas as a digression from the true faith."
Research Interests:
The core of a Trinitarian model is the internal layout of intra-Trinitarian relations. Depending on different metaphysical interpretations of the nature of the relations, various patristic authors have produced different and oftentimes... more
The core of a Trinitarian model is the internal layout of intra-Trinitarian relations. Depending on different metaphysical interpretations of the nature of the relations, various patristic authors have produced different and oftentimes incompatible Trinitarian models, and, consequently, conflicting expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity. In order to elucidate the differences in their Trinitarian theologies, I demonstrate the divergence in their understanding of the divine relations using the contemporary philosophical taxonomy of relations. I analyze the models of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, and Boethius, and their attempted synthesis by Thomas Aquinas. Each of the patristic Trinitarian models, in spite of being fully orthodox, uses completely different types of relations, which makes them incompatible. One of the results of this incompatibility is the problem of the filioque, which cannot be resolved without addressing the metaphysics of relations.
Research Interests:
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians claim that the unique event of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is present in Eucharistic liturgies. A popular explanatory strategy for this miraculous presence suggests that due to its... more
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians claim that the unique event of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary is present in Eucharistic liturgies. A popular explanatory strategy for this miraculous presence suggests that due to its supernatural character the Eucharist " conquers time, " transcends its boundaries, and allows for temporal coincidence of two chronologically distant events. I discuss the four main approaches within this strategy that can be discovered in contemporary theological writings. The first approach implies a time travel of the Calvary event. The second suggests the time travel of Eucharistic participants. The third eliminates the chronological distance by relocating one of the events into a timeless reality. The fourth assumes multilocation of the event across time. I argue that each of these approaches is untenable on philosophical or theological grounds.
Research Interests:
The Greek model of the Trinity, based on the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, treats the Trinitarian relations as connections between the Father and the two other persons: the Son and the Holy Spirit. The two relations have... more
The Greek model of the Trinity, based on the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, treats the Trinitarian relations as connections between the Father and the two other persons: the Son and the Holy Spirit. The two relations have to be heteronymous (“generation” and “procession”), and have to be interpreted from the extreme realistic position. The Latin Trinitarian model, based on Boethius’ De Trinitate, treats relations as three subsistent persons. The relations have to be unidirectional: from the Father to the Son, and from both of them to the Holy Spirit. Both models are adequate and effective, but incompatible. One of the consequences of this incompatibility is the problem of filioque: the introduction of an additional relation of procession into the Greek model as well as the exclusion of this relation from the Latin model result in the inadequacy of the models. From the point of view of the complementability of a model, the Greek model allows introduction of new elements, while the Latin model does not. The soteriological consequences are such that the Greek model welcomes a human person to establish a unique relation with the person of the Father, which leads to the theosis of a creature. The Latin model requires the saving relation to be established with the whole Trinity, and theosis is not supported.
Research Interests:
There are numerous interpretations of the event that is considered to be the beginning of the European Reformation of the XVI century, i.e., the publication of the Ninety-Five Theses by Martin Luther in 1517. According to the most popular... more
There are numerous interpretations of the event that is considered to be the beginning of the European Reformation of the XVI century, i.e., the publication of the Ninety-Five Theses by Martin Luther in 1517. According to the most popular interpretations, the publication of the Theses was an extraordinary historical event. I argue, however, that the writing of the Theses was an ordinary episode of the daily academic life. This claim is justified by the excerpts from private letters of Martin Luther from 1517–1518, contemporary historical scholarship of the Reformation era, and the analysis of the specific features of European academic life and the events from the history of the Church in XIV–XVI centuries. I consider the creation of the Ninety-Five Theses as a part of the more-than-a-century-old academic competition between universities belonging to the traditions of via antiqua and via moderna. In addition, I establish a relation between, on the one hand, the struggle of the philosophical and theological traditions of via moderna and via antiqua and, on the other hand, the struggle of the ecclesiastical political movements for conciliarism and for the primacy of the pope. I also claim that the true cause of the beginning of the Reformation lies in the conflict between the ecclesiastical authorities, which tried to suppress theological discussions, and the academic community, which considered those discussions as their undeniable right.
Research Interests:
I argue that evidentialist ethics of belief requires believing in every promise, because any promise always has sufficient evidence. In order to combine evidentialism with ethics of belief, I distinguish two belief-like propositional... more
I argue that evidentialist ethics of belief requires believing in every promise, because any promise always has sufficient evidence. In order to combine evidentialism with ethics of belief, I distinguish two belief-like propositional attitudes. The first is categorical belief, which I call “opinion,” the second is quantitative belief, which I call “credence.” I accept doxastic voluntarism about opinions, and doxastic involuntarism about credences. Opinion has two values—affirmative and negative—and the subject has control over which one to choose. Credence can have any value between 0 and 1; it is formed solely on the basis of the available evidence, and the subject has no control over it. The requirement of evidentialist ethics of belief is that one should have opinion that p when his credence that p is between 0.5 and 1, and opinion that ¬p when the credence is below 0.5. My main argument has two premises. The first premise is that if one accepts a promise, then his credence that “the promise will be fulfilled” is higher than 0.5. The second premise claims that nothing can decrease that credence. The main explanation for the second premise is that any potential evidence against the fulfillment of the promise turns out to be evidence against its validity, not the evidence against the propositional content of the credence. The final conclusion is that if an evidentialist accepts a promise, then he should always have the opinion that “the promise will be fulfilled,” i.e., always believe in the promise.
Research Interests:
The appropriationist approach to history of philosophy is often accused of being antihistorical and thus unreliable. The appropriationists are only concerned with their own philosophical problems, and they make discriminating use of the... more
The appropriationist approach to history of philosophy is often accused of being antihistorical and thus unreliable. The appropriationists are only concerned with their own philosophical problems, and they make discriminating use of the historical data as far as it serves their needs. Its rival, the contextualist approach, claims to be an honest, dedicated and reliable treatment of history. The contextualists are willing to make use of the tedious methodology of Classical studies as long as it promises to uncover the true historical data. In this paper I present a case where the contextualists have failed to surpass their rival appropriationists in their quest for veracity. The case is the debate about Aristotle’s De Interpretatione 9, which took place in 1950-1980s. In this debate the contextualists were unable to offer any other results except for those which have already been suggested by the appropriationists. In addition I demonstrate how the contextualists selectively used the arsenal of Classical methodology not to uncover the truth, but to justify their own preconceived interpretations.
Research Interests:
Alvin Plantinga has played a pivotal role in bringing theological questions and ideas into the broad philosophical, predominantly non-theistic community. His “Advice to Christian Philosophers” (1983) was the turning point in the history... more
Alvin Plantinga has played a pivotal role in bringing theological questions and ideas into the broad philosophical, predominantly non-theistic community. His “Advice to Christian Philosophers” (1983) was the turning point in the history of philosophical theology. In his “Advice” Plantinga talks about how best to be a Christian in philosophy. He suggests that Christian intellectuals should become more autonomous from the rest of philosophical world, display more unity, and express greater Christian self-confidence. These advices, however, are addressed not to just any intellectual of a Christian affiliation. He addresses them to those 1) who have graduated from a conservative Christian college, 2) who have obtained a PhD in philosophy, and 3) who continue their career as professional philosophers. That means that the person should be well acquainted with the traditional Christian doctrine and practice, should be well versed in the contemporary analytic philosophy, and should be an acknowledged member of the established philosophical community. Thus, it would be a mistake to apply Plantinga’s “Advice” to a person who does not meet all of the three requirements.
The present day situation in Russia is such that there is a dramatic shortfall of those intellectuals who satisfy all of the three Plantinga’s requirements. It is still premature for Russian Christian philosophers to become autonomous from the rest of the philosophical community, to establish Christian philosophical clusters, and to display Christian self-confidence in the face of the non-theistic majority. Philosophical theology in Russia is currently in its “pre-Plantingan” phase. In order to improve this situation I suggest reversing Plantinga’s advices into their opposites. Russian Christian philosophers ought to learn how to operate within the broad philosophical community. They should familiarize themselves with the contemporary analytic philosophy and its methods, and they should become acknowledged members of the established professional circles. Then, and only then, philosophical theology in Russia can enter its post-Plantingan era.
The present day situation in Russia is such that there is a dramatic shortfall of those intellectuals who satisfy all of the three Plantinga’s requirements. It is still premature for Russian Christian philosophers to become autonomous from the rest of the philosophical community, to establish Christian philosophical clusters, and to display Christian self-confidence in the face of the non-theistic majority. Philosophical theology in Russia is currently in its “pre-Plantingan” phase. In order to improve this situation I suggest reversing Plantinga’s advices into their opposites. Russian Christian philosophers ought to learn how to operate within the broad philosophical community. They should familiarize themselves with the contemporary analytic philosophy and its methods, and they should become acknowledged members of the established professional circles. Then, and only then, philosophical theology in Russia can enter its post-Plantingan era.
Research Interests:
It is often claimed that Plato’s definition of knowledge as “true opinion with an account” is in agreement with the contemporary analysis of knowledge as “justified true belief” (JTB). Some scholars disagree with the attribution of JTB to... more
It is often claimed that Plato’s definition of knowledge as “true opinion with an account” is in agreement with the contemporary analysis of knowledge as “justified true belief” (JTB). Some scholars disagree with the attribution of JTB to Plato. I analyze three influential arguments against the assumption of Plato’s agreement with JTB, and refute them. Then I provide my own argument against the assumption. I argue that the contemporary interpretation of the JTB formula understands “belief” not in the sense of an “opinion,” but rather of a “degree of confidence.” Accordingly, “justification” is understood not as applying to the opinion itself, but rather to the person having a certain degree of confidence. I support this claim by showing the difference between the traditional and the contemporary understanding of “evidence,” the former referring to a property of the proposition, while the latter meaning the body of reasons, which supports the person’s confidence to a certain degree. Thus, I conclude that Plato understands knowledge as “correct opinion validated by a rational explanation,” and it has very little in common with the contemporary understanding of knowledge as “sufficiently supported subjective degree of confidence in the truth of a proposition.”
Research Interests:
The paper is a part of the panel discussion with John Greco about his theory of the transmission of religious knowledge. My goal here is not to argue with Greco's theory, but to find out whether it requires any adjustment. I argue that... more
The paper is a part of the panel discussion with John Greco about his theory of the transmission of religious knowledge. My goal here is not to argue with Greco's theory, but to find out whether it requires any adjustment. I argue that Greco's theory of the social transmission of knowledge requires the transmitted knowledge to be socially verifiable, that is, to be subject to those means of confirmation that pertain to the social system. Unfortunately, some kinds of religious knowledge are not socially verifiable; therefore, they cannot be transmitted via Greco's social mechanism. I conclude that Greco's theory turns out to be applicable to the socially verifiable religious testimonies, and not applicable to the rest.
Research Interests:
Peter Forrest claims that his “Personal Pantheist” conception of God is in agreement with the Stoic pantheism. The traditional interpretation, however, treats the Stoic God as the non-personal universal law. I demonstrate that arguments... more
Peter Forrest claims that his “Personal Pantheist” conception of God is in agreement with the Stoic pantheism. The traditional interpretation, however, treats the Stoic God as the non-personal universal law. I demonstrate that arguments in favor of the personal interpretation typically imply either a personalist or an anthropocentric metaphysical foundation. I also argue that the Stoics were neither personalists nor anthropocentrists, therefore those arguments should be rejected
Research Interests:
Analytic philosophers produced two rival interpretations of Aristotle’s discussion of the tomorrow sea battle (De Int. IX). According to the traditional interpretation, Aristotle claims that the principle of bivalence is not applicable to... more
Analytic philosophers produced two rival interpretations of Aristotle’s discussion of the tomorrow sea battle (De Int. IX). According to the traditional interpretation, Aristotle claims that the principle of bivalence is not applicable to propositions about the contingent future. The alternative interpretation insists that Aristotle does not limit that applicability. The paper suggests an argument in favor of the traditional interpretation, based on the intrinsic connection between semantics of the propositions about future contingents and ontology of the future. We argue that Aristotle followed the open future ontology and therefore could not approve of the bivalence of the propositions about contingent future.
Research Interests:
Classical theists believe that God has foreknowledge, that God gives promises, and that God does not lie. The notion of promise, however, implies that the giver of a promise does not know the future. Consequently, God either pretends to... more
Classical theists believe that God has foreknowledge, that God gives promises, and that God does not lie. The notion of promise, however, implies that the giver of a promise does not know the future. Consequently, God either pretends to give promises, or he does not know the future. It seems to be impossible to find a solution to the problem within the framework of classical theism, which is an argument in favor of open theism.
Research Interests:
Available manuscripts of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians have a variant reading of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper in 11:24. The longer reading contains “take, eat” while the shorter reading does not. The two readings have a... more
Available manuscripts of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians have a variant reading of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper in 11:24. The longer reading contains “take, eat” while the shorter reading does not. The two readings have a noticeable difference in meaning. The longer one highlights the individual value of the Eucharist; the shorter version, however, favors its institutional significance. The existence of both readings can be interpreted as a witness to an ideological dynamics in the early church. Depending on which of the two readings is considered prior, the church history would be seen either as an increase of clerical authority, or as an increase of value of the individual.
Research Interests:
The Greek word ‘schesis’ in the works of Gregory Nazianzen has generally been translated as ‘relation’ and interpreted as a programmatic term for his doctrine of Trinitarian relations. Although this may be a valid interpretation of the... more
The Greek word ‘schesis’ in the works of Gregory Nazianzen has generally been translated as ‘relation’ and interpreted as a programmatic term for his doctrine of Trinitarian relations. Although this may be a valid interpretation of the terminology of other 4th century theologians, this is not true of Gregory. His usage of the word ‘schesis’ does not correspond with the traditional Aristotelian or Stoic ways of designating a relation. It denotes a status or a disposition, it may even mean a place in a relation, but it is not the relation itself, and not a disposition towards another. Therefore all the interpretations of Gregory’s teaching on the Trinitarian relations are to be revisited and reformulated more carefully, keeping in mind the peculiarity of his usage of ‘schesis.’
Research Interests:
The paper discusses three approaches to negative theology: of Maimonides, of Wittgenstein, and of Putnam. It demonstrates how for all the three philosophers negative theology is validated not on the theoretical but on practical grounds,... more
The paper discusses three approaches to negative theology: of Maimonides, of Wittgenstein, and of Putnam. It demonstrates how for all the three philosophers negative theology is validated not on the theoretical but on practical grounds, and is justified by the religious life. It reveals the pragmatist features of Maimonides’ philosophy, and mystical tendencies of Putnam’s philosophy.
Research Interests:
Analysis of argumentation that was used in the crucial Christian dogmatic debates reveals two fundamental principles of evaluation of theological theories – the principle of maximal perfection of God, and the principle of maximal... more
Analysis of argumentation that was used in the crucial Christian dogmatic debates reveals two fundamental principles of evaluation of theological theories – the principle of maximal perfection of God, and the principle of maximal salvation, or the "soteriological principle". The former was inherited from the platonic tradition, while the latter is unique for Christian philosophy. In the decisive debates the most influential arguments were based on the primacy of the soteriological principle.
Research Interests:
There are two approaches that currently dominate the studies of patristic philosophy: the teleological approach and the approach of classical history and philology. None of the two approaches aim to reconstruct the philosophical content... more
There are two approaches that currently dominate the studies of patristic philosophy: the teleological
approach and the approach of classical history and philology. None of the two approaches aim to reconstruct the philosophical content and the argumentation of the ancient Christian writers. As an alternative, it is suggested to
apply the analytic approach to the history of patristic philosophy.
approach and the approach of classical history and philology. None of the two approaches aim to reconstruct the philosophical content and the argumentation of the ancient Christian writers. As an alternative, it is suggested to
apply the analytic approach to the history of patristic philosophy.
Research Interests:
The paper discusses the characteristics of the analytic approach to the history of Ancient philosophy, distinguishing it from the more popular approaches or genres. This approach is based on finding out an implicit argumentation and... more
The paper discusses the characteristics of the analytic approach to the history of Ancient philosophy, distinguishing it from the more popular approaches or genres. This approach is based on finding out an implicit argumentation and problems in the philosophical texts, and establishing logical connections between them. The paper also considers the perspectives of application of this approach to the Patristic literature. Besides it shows the necessity of formalization and symbolization in the analytic history of philosophy.
Research Interests:
Gregory of Nazianzus and Boethius build their theoretical models of the Trinitarian relations using the philosophical category of relation. While Gregory interprets relation as a connection between the divine Persons, and introduces two... more
Gregory of Nazianzus and Boethius build their theoretical models of the Trinitarian relations using the philosophical category of relation. While Gregory interprets relation as a connection between the divine Persons, and introduces two kinds of relation, Boethius uses only one relation and locates relation in the Persons themselves. As a result Gregory’s model does not allow an insertion of a relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit, while Boethius’ model does not permit to exclude this relation.
Research Interests:
The paper examines the theoretical structure of the Trinitarian doctrine of Gregory of Nazianzus and his ways of argumentation. Gregory’s prohibition to philosophize about God is interpreted not as a result of his epistemological... more
The paper examines the theoretical structure of the Trinitarian doctrine of Gregory of Nazianzus and his ways of argumentation. Gregory’s prohibition to philosophize about God is interpreted not as a result of his epistemological position, but rather as a rhetorical method. His successful synthesis of values of ancient rationality, classical education, and Christian ideals, requires taking into account the richness of his rhetorical style, in order not to limit our understanding of his teaching by a literal interpretation of separate statements.
Research Interests:
Кандидатская диссертация, 2007 г. (Ph.D. Thesis, 2007)
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The paper discusses the characteristics of the analytic approach to the history of Ancient philosophy, distinguishing it from the more popular approaches or genres. This approach is based on finding out an implicit argumentation and... more
The paper discusses the characteristics of the analytic approach to the history of Ancient philosophy, distinguishing it from the more popular approaches or genres. This approach is based on finding out an implicit argumentation and problems in the philosophical texts, and establishing logical connections between them. The paper also considers the perspectives of application of this approach to the Patristic literature. Besides it shows the necessity of formalization and symbolization in the analytic history of philosophy.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The success of the atheistic hiddenness argument depends on the “consciousness constraint” it imposes on the divine-human loving relationship: namely, that this relationship requires human conscious awareness of being in the relationship... more
The success of the atheistic hiddenness argument depends on the “consciousness constraint” it imposes on the divine-human loving relationship: namely, that this relationship requires human conscious awareness of being in the relationship with God. I challenge the truth of this proposition by introducing the concept of a physical relationship with God that is not subject to this constraint. I argue, first, that a physical relationship with God is metaphysically possible; second, that its plausibility is supported by natural theology; and third, that a perfectly loving God would prefer physical relationships with human beings over consciousness-constrained relationships, because a perfectly loving God would prefer to preserve the integrity of human freedom of participation and allow inclusion of all people regardless of their natural cognitive capabilities. I also offer an interpretation of apparent divine hiddenness in the light of the idea of God’s openness for physical relationships.
Research Interests:
The paper offers a new strategy for refuting the atheistic hiddenness argument. For that, the argument is modified on the account of the actual epistemic situation in our world. As a result, the success of the modified argument hinges on... more
The paper offers a new strategy for refuting the atheistic hiddenness argument. For that, the argument is modified on the account of the actual epistemic situation in our world. As a result, the success of the modified argument hinges on the truth of the supposition that divine-human loving relationship depends on whether the human had a convincing religious experience of the divine presence and whether the human possesses the capability to recognize this experience as their participation in the relationship with God. This supposition, however, is shown to be unfounded. Moreover, this supposition entails that many people who lack the necessary cognitive abilities to be conscious of their relationship with God are thus unfit for this relationship, which disagrees with the idea of all-encompassing divine love. A successful rebuttal of this supposition results in a refutation of the hiddenness argument.
Research Interests:
In the end of the 20th century analytic philosophy of religion has formed a new course for the debate about the existence of God, which is concerned with the problem of the divine hiddenness. The paper addresses the historical context of... more
In the end of the 20th century analytic philosophy of religion has formed a new course for the debate about the existence of God, which is concerned with the problem of the divine hiddenness. The paper addresses the historical context of the origin of the new course. It shows how its originator John Schellenberg was able to formulate his Hiddenness Argument using the contemporary achievements in epistemology. In addition, the paper brings out Schellenberg’s novel approach to defense of plausibility of the Argument’s premises. Finally, it suggests promising directions for debating the Hiddenness Argument.