In Defence of Anthropomorphic Theism

Authors

  • Peter Forrest University of New England

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v3i1.383

Abstract

I reply to seven objections to anthropomorphic theism: (1) That anthropomorphic theism is idolatrous. In reply I rely on the concept/conception distinction. (2) That faith requires certainty. In reply I argue that full belief may be based on probable inference. (3) That the truly infinite is incomprehensible. In reply I distinguish two senses of knowing what you mean. (4) ‘You Kant say that!’ In reply I distinguish shallow from deep Kantianism. (5) ‘Shall Old Aquinas be forgot?’ In reply I discuss the simplicity of God. (6) What those garrulous mystics say about the ineffable. In reply I argue that mystics should be anthropomorphites. (7) Anti-theodicy. In reply I distinguish the community of all agents from the community of finite frail agents. 

Downloads

Published

2011-03-21

How to Cite

Forrest, Peter. 2011. “In Defence of Anthropomorphic Theism”. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (1):105-22. https://doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v3i1.383.

Issue

Section

Research Articles