GOD IN THE AGE OF SCIENCE PHILIPSE PDF
God in the Age of Science?: A Critique of Religious Reason is a book by the Dutch philosopher Herman Philipse, written in English and published in the. Given, however, that we are living in the age of science, Philipse argues that the natural theologian is faced with a dilemma he calls “The. God in the Age of Science?: A Critique Of Religious Reason. by. Herman Philipse . Philipse tackles religion from an epistemilogical point of view whereas most.
|Published (Last):||2 July 2011|
|PDF File Size:||11.66 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Classical, Early, and Medieval Poetry and Poets: He has rhe written many commentaries for Dutch newspapers most frequently as a regular contributor to the NRC Handelsblad and current events television programs, defending atheism and advocating cultural assimilation for non-European immigrants in the Netherlands. Oxford University Press, Hector Mata rated it it was amazing Sep 03, This is absolutely the best agw on this subject. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
Finally, if evidence is needed, should its evidential support be assessed by the same logical criteria that we use in evaluating evidence in science, or not?
Subscriber Login Email Address.
Philipse does his best to argue for the relevance of natural theology zcience the approach one ought to take, and he aimed at the best natural theology has to offer in his arguments. Philipse goes about this ambitious task in a series of commendably clear steps. Each of these options has been kn by prominent analytic philosophers of religion. To summarize metaphorically, it is as if the last chance to secure a foundation for the throne of God is to rest on the shoulders of the Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford and, if he has failed, as Philipse argues he has, the game is pretty much all over for God.
God in the Age of Science? – Hardcover – Herman Philipse – Oxford University Press
This section offers critiques of cosmological arguments, arguments from design and an assortment of other arguments and their defenses, sciencf with a chapter on religious experience that refutes the attempt to shift the burden of proof to the non-believer Oxford University Press,Pp.
No keywords specified fix it. If it is a factual claim, they can either be warranted to endorse it without evidence, etc. Daniel Bastian marked it as to-read Mar 28, Considering Philipse’s overall strategy, however, I have some serious concerns. Christian rated it it was amazing Sep 05, Jan marked it as to-read Apr 06, God in the Age of Science?: Sceptical Theism and Divine Lies. God in the Age of Science?: If cthis can be done by e methods completely unlike those used by scientists and scholars, or f like those methods.
Either religious believers have not succeeded in providing a meaningful characterization of their god sor the existence of this god or these gods is improbable given our scientific and scholarly background knowledge. Philipse deals with this argument early, but as a justification this keeps coming up in Swinburne’s inductive argument. Nevertheless, as one goes to philispe levels of complexity than those natural systems that can be modelled as aggregates of two-body systems, science becomes less a matter of prediction and more a matter of discovering and unifying phenomena under common explanatory frameworks, as is the case, for instance, with zoology.
Paul seems to deny that Jesus was resurrected with his earthly or physical body, arguing that he was raised with a new, spiritual and heavenly body sooma pneumatikonsince ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ 5; cf.
The end result is something quite technical, but still full of interesting approaches to particular problem. Philipse’s vigorous public atheism has, unsurprisingly, brought him into conflict with Islamists in the Netherlands. The reader is presumably invited to draw the lesson that science supplanted religion sometime scince the eighteenth century, but this painting also has surprisingly macabre philipss.
To understand the way Philipse laid out the critique, it’s worth exploring the three dilemmas Philipse proposes the theist has to answer: July Learn how and when to remove this template message. Mar 26, Ester marked it as to-read Shelves: It’s a tough question to answer.
The end result predictably is that Swinburne’s approach simply doesn’t have the predictive power attributed to it. Social Dynamics Brian Skyrms.
God in the Age of Science?
Kirk marked it as to-read Mar 26, This entry has no external links. Thanks for telling us about the problem. An example is when Philipse raises the possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally indifferent god MIG as a rival hypothesis to theism and makes the odd point that the necessity of God would raise a problem for theism as a “theory” If it is a truth claim, they can either be warranted to endorse it without evidence, or not.
More generally, Philipse firmly defends the values of the Enlightenment: This page was last edited on 28 Decemberat To give an example, he asserts that in his first letter to the Corinthians The Rationality of Natural Theology 6.
If areligious belief c needs to be backed up by reasons evidence, or d it does not. Philipse tackles religion from an epistemilogical point of view whereas most of the ‘new atheists’ write philipxe a non-philosophical pamphlet point of view, for example: From untilhe taught at Leiden University, where he obtained his doctorate in Belief in God and the Existence of God.