Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:48:34.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Perfect Person’ conception of God, versus the traditional conception: is the difference so great?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2017

HOWARD ROBINSON
HOWARD ROBINSON*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Central European University, Budapest 1051, Hungary and Center for Philosophy of Religion, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA
*
e-mail: robinson@ceu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various contemporary philosophers, with Richard Swinburne prominent amongst them, have abandoned the traditional philosophical conception of God, according to which He is absolutely simple and eternal (as opposed to sempiternal). These contemporary philosophers conceive of Him as a ‘perfect person’, immaterial, but with human-type virtues in a superhuman degree. I argue that, whilst this development is probably mistaken, nevertheless the traditionalist critics perhaps sometimes exaggerate the differences between these conceptions – except on the crucial issue of God's eternity.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 53 , Special Issue 3: In Honour of Richard Swinburne , September 2017 , pp. 293 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Davies, B. (forthcoming) ‘The Summa Theologiae on what God is not’, in Hause, J. (ed.) A Critical Guide to the Summa Theologiae (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press).Google Scholar
Dolezal, J. E. (2011). God without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications).Google Scholar
Helm, P. (1988) Eternal God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Miller, B. (1992) From Existence to God (London & New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Miller, B. (1996) A Most Unlikely God (Indianapolis: Notre Dame Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. (1980) Does God Have a Nature? (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press).Google Scholar
Robinson, H. (2008) ‘Can we make sense of the idea that God's existence is identical to His essence?’, in Stone, M. (ed.) Reason, Faith and History: Essays for Paul Helm (London: Ashgate), 127–143.Google Scholar
Stump, E. & Kretzmann, N. (1981) ‘Eternity’, Philosophical Papers, 78, 429–458.Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1977) The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press; rev. edn, 2016).Google Scholar
Swinburne, R. (1994) The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallicella, W. F. (2015) ‘Divine simplicity’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/divine-simplicity/>..>Google Scholar