Reviews

HAMPSON, NORMAN

doi:10.1093/fs/xxxiv.2.240

Fr Stud

1980

DOI: 10.1093/fs/xxxiv.2.240

|View full text |Cite

Reviews

NORMAN HAMPSON¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1995

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The key tenet in this creed is 'An equalisation of power is the prerequisite for the creation of a co-humanity'. 26 The demands of this tenet will be fulfilled by that favourite device in feminist political thought: mechanisms for mutual empowerment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Omnipotence, feminism and God

Byrne

1995

Int J Philos Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

But for feminism, the further monarchical monotheism rationalises the object of its experiences, the more obviously susceptible it becomes to deconstruction as an anthropomorphic projection which divinises male political power. 1Even superficial acquaintance with feminists on God reveals that there is little common ground in premises or methods of argument between the philosophical basis of the traditional concept of God and the feminist counter blast to it. Thus it is hard a priori to see how any attempt to weigh one against the other can make any progress. Nonetheless, it may well be worth the attempt to do so, in the spirit of trying to keep open some channels of communication between analytic discussions of the concept of God and the flood of feminist writing in philosophy and theology.My focus is on the attribute of omnipotence and this for two reasons. One is that it has been crucial in the feminist critique, playing a key role in confirming -for feminists -that the concept of God in philosophy of religion is not politically innocent but rather a projection of masculine attributes and goals onto a divine being. Further, it might be supposed that by looking at the critique of one attribute discussion could be narrowed down to a range of issues manageable in a single paper. This latter reason entails problems, since it is evident that the rejection of omnipotence in God as obviously a male projection is part and parcel of a wider case and may stand or fall with that case. However, a reading of authors such as Reuther, Hampson and Daly would suggest that the alleged errors in the doctrine of omnipotence are reasons for thinking that the entire, traditional concept of God has to go and thus, in turn, that the errors of omnipotence are independently discussible to some degree.However, the notion that there is an independently weighable feminist case against the doctrine of divine omnipotence faces two further difficulties. They both stem from what appears to be the curious indirection of the feminist critique. This indirection is twofold.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Omnipotence, feminism and God

Byrne

1995

Int J Philos Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Reviews

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Omnipotence, feminism and God

Omnipotence, feminism and God

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About