No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2008
At the risk of a tremendous over-simplification, I believe it is helpful to categorize views of Christianity which have appeared in the west in the last two hundred years into three major groups. First there are the unbelievers, those for whom Christianity is straightforwardly untrue, unknowable, or unbelievable (or all three). This group would include those who try to salvage some form of essentially humanistic religion as well as those who simply turn away from religious belief altogether, either to put their ultimate hopes in political ideology, or science, or simply to attempt to limit themselves to hopes which are finite and non-ultimate in character.
page 145 note 1 See particluarly chapters 1 and 2 of Philosophical Fragments (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
page 146 note 1 Philosophical Fragments, p. 139.Google Scholar
page 146 note 2 Concluding Unscientific Postscript (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1941), p. 323.Google Scholar
page 147 note 1 Hick, John, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (London, SCM Press, 1977).Google Scholar
page 147 note 2 The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 205.Google Scholar
page 148 note 1 Ibid.
page 148 note 2 There is an exception to this rejection. Some contributors claim the doctrine can be preserved and have a valid function as ‘myth’. I shall analyse this suggestion later.
page 148 note 3 The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 8.Google Scholar
page 149 note 1 Ibid. pp. 183–4.
page 150 note 1 Ibid. p. 178.
page 150 note 2 Ibid. p. 34.
page 152 note 1 Ibid. p. 161.
page 157 note 1 Concluding Unscientfic Postscript, p. 194.Google Scholar