Customer Review

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars seemingly wild open-mindedness towards religious doctrine, June 7, 2012
This review is from: Philosophy of Religion (4th Edition) (Paperback)
Hick's Philosophy of Religion, a thin volume of analytic philosophy, actually changed my life. Having been staunchly raised as a naive but bright member of a General Association of Regular Baptist church, I picked up Hick's Philosophy of Religion in a used bookstore (Bookseller's Row) in Chicago in 1990. Its rational, deliberative approach combined with a seemingly wild open-mindedness towards religious doctrine was what cracked opened the worlds of religion, philosophy, history, and literature to an impressionable college student. Later that year, I would echo one of Hick's arguments in a question to philosopher Richard Swinbourne, whose predictable Oxfordian condescension did the opposite of discouraging me.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 3 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 10, 2012 3:42:27 PM PDT
You've piqued my interest. What did you ask Swinburne and how did he respond?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 10, 2012 8:20:26 PM PDT
goethean says:
Swinbourne's argument was that the universe is more likely to have been created by a creator than otherwise. Hick's reply, which I echoed, was that because there is only one universe, probability doesn't apply to it.

Swinbourne responded, dripping with condescension, "My, my you HAVE been reading, haven't you?" He then argued that probability does apply to the universe: if you flip a coin just once, probability does apply to the coin toss. Which isn't really a valid argument (who is to say whether there are two possibilities for the universe to have been like?), but I granted it because he was out-arguing me.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 6:57:05 PM PDT
Interesting. Thanks for the reply. Sorry Swinburne was condescending to you. I wonder if that was an on-the-spot defensiveness or if that is the way he is.

Posted on Aug 31, 2013 2:00:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 31, 2013 2:01:31 PM PDT
Jim Fann says:
So by contrast to your being "naïve but bright," are all other General Association of Regular Baptists simply "misguided"? Or are you just being condescending, like the scholarly but equally bright (perhaps even brilliant) philosopher Richard Swinburne. And, seriously, does Swinburne's case for God really come down to a probability argument? I think you may have dismissed him too hastily. Of course it's possible you weren't looking for an answer but an excuse ("predictable Oxfordian condescension") to disagree with him. Frankly, your ad hominem approach to those with whom you disagree leaves something to be desired.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2013 8:58:12 PM PDT
goethean says:
I don't think that I implied anything negative about other members of the GARBC.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

3.4 out of 5 stars (8 customer reviews)
5 star:
 (3)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:
 (2)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (2)
 
 
 
$70.20 $60.86
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Reviewer


Location: Chicago

Top Reviewer Ranking: 821,714