3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
seemingly wild open-mindedness towards religious doctrine,
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.
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
David Kilpatrick says:
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
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
David Kilpatrick says:
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
I don't think that I implied anything negative about other members of the GARBC.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›