The Divine Attributes and Non-personal Conceptions of God

Bishop, John; Perszyk, Ken

doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9394-z

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Creation, at least for the Thomist, is 'the investigation of the dependence of all that is on God,' that is, 'dependence in the order of being,' 112 or, put differently, 'God's creative action just is creation's dependence on God for its existence.' 113 Creatio is not the process through which a specific aggregation of atoms or state of affairs is realised, but is simply the fact that such a universe has 'being.' More importantly, this means that creatio is not gradated; all creatures are metaphysically equal before God.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tabaczek is careful to distinguish between 'species' and 'essence,' so that 'metaphysical categories of "higher" and "lower" should not be equated with biological concepts describing organisms as "more complex" and "better adapted."' 54 However, this, Tabaczek clarifies, means that the theologian is not obliged to argue that an ant (as an example of a creature that is clearly evolutionarily successful) is on the same metaphysical footing as Neanderthals (as an example of an evolutionary unsuccessful creature). 55 In other words, Tabaczek argues, just because a creature is evolutionarily well-adapted does not mean that it is metaphysically superior.…”

Section: Mutation and Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, the theologian in the Dionysian vein has more in common with 'statistical' Modern Synthesis; there is no biological mutation which makes any creature metaphysically better. 53 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Christianity and Evolution (London: Harvest, 1971), p.108 54 Mariusz Tabaczek 'An Aristotelian Account of Evolution and the Contemporary Philosophy of Biology', in Dialogo Vol. 1 No.…”

Section: Mutation and Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

‘There Is Nothing but Blind, Pitiless Indifference in the Universe:’ Evolution and Divine Purpose

BROWN¹

2022

IJTPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions of theological interpretations of evolution seem to fall into two categories: those who see evolution as a part of God’s purposes and those who see evolution as counter to God’s purposes for creation. Invariably, these interpretations of evolution emphasise one or more commonly held aspects of evolution: either evolution is genuinely creative - so part of God’s purposes - or suffering and death are inherent parts of evolution (natural selection) - so counter to God’s purposes. However, drawing on Thomas Aquinas, this paper will argue that a third theological interpretation of evolution is possible in which God is neutral towards evolution, that is, it is neither creative and nor does it inherently contain suffering and death. This will lead to the suggestion that theology is at least reconcilable with evolutionary positions that emphasise its ‘purposelessness,’ if not that theology is more favourable to those positions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mutation and Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mutation and Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

‘There Is Nothing but Blind, Pitiless Indifference in the Universe:’ Evolution and Divine Purpose

BROWN¹

2022

IJTPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, in recent debates in the philosophy of religion, one can notice a turning away from personalistic images of God. A central motivation for this is the unresolved problem of evil (see, e.g., Mulgan 2015;Bishop and Perszyk 2017;Wildman 2017). These accounts favor conceptions of the divine responsive to objective values such as existence, life, beauty, creativity, diversity and-in the human case-a striving for goodness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal Suffering, God and Lessons from the Book of Job

Gasser

2021

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature shows itself to us in ambivalent ways. Breathtaking beauty and cruelty lie close together. A Darwinian image of nature seems to imply that nature is a mere place of violence, cruelty and mercilessness. In this article, I first explore the question of whether such an interpretation of nature is not one-sided by being phrased in overly moral terms. Then, I outline how the problem of animal suffering relates to a specific understanding of God as moral agent. Finally, in the main part of the argumentation, I pursue the question to what extent the problem of animal (and human) suffering does not arise for a concept of God couched in less personalistic terms. If God’s perspective towards creation is rather de-anthropocentric, then moral concerns might be of less importance as we generally assume. Such an understanding of the divine is by no means alien to the biblical-theistic tradition. I argue that it finds strong echoes in the divine speeches in the Book of Job: They aim at teaching us to accept both the beauty and the tragic of existence in a creation that seen in its entirety is rather a-moral. Finally, I address the question what such a concept of God could mean for our existence.

show abstract

“…The research of J. Bishop and K. Perszsyk (2017) on methodological grounds for determination of the creative abilities of a holy fool by the immediate environment in specific place and time contributed in solving the problem of studying the phenomenon of foolishness for Christ. The works of A.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenomenological meaning of foolishness for Christ (Russian version yurodstvo)

Ilyin¹,

Matushanskaya²,

Shagieva³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relevance of the problem under study is due to contradictions between the ontological prerequisites of "yurodstvo" (foolishness for Christ) as a phenomenon of cultural and social life, phenomenological perceptions of juridical life, as well as views on it from the position of philosophy of religion at the beginning of the XXI century, enrichment of knowledge about its elements and characteristics, which make up the phenomenological meaning of foolishness for Christ. The purpose of the article is to reveal the phenomenological meaning of juridical life, to define it as a phenomenon of cultural, religious and social life, and to identify its ontological grounds. The leading method of studying this problem is the method of comparativetypological analysis, the systemic approach, the sociocultural approach, the principle of historism, the axiological method. At the same time, popular scholarly methods of knowledge were used: analysis and synthesis, climbing from abstract to concrete, ideas of determinism and synergistic historism were used. The article reveals the content of the concept of foolishness for Christ taking into account the ontological component; The elements that serve as phenomenological bases for the maintenance of the foolishness are identified; A methodological analysis of the content of the phenomenological meaning of foolishness for Christ has been carried out, a system of philosophical evaluation of foolishness for Christ has been formulated, and the nature of the presence of juridical life in social life has been analyzed.

show abstract

The Divine Attributes and Non-personal Conceptions of God

Cited by 12 publications

References 20 publications

‘There Is Nothing but Blind, Pitiless Indifference in the Universe:’ Evolution and Divine Purpose

‘There Is Nothing but Blind, Pitiless Indifference in the Universe:’ Evolution and Divine Purpose

Animal Suffering, God and Lessons from the Book of Job

Phenomenological meaning of foolishness for Christ (Russian version yurodstvo)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About