Abstract
If the reasoning of the preceding chapter has been sound, there are no good philosophical arguments for denying God to be the explanation of the universe and of the form of order it exhibits. This being so, there is no good reason for philosophers not to return once more to the classical conception of their subject, provided there are no better ways to obtain wisdom. However, our interim conclusion also implies that the monotheistic religions stand closer to metaphysical truth than atheism or agnosticism. The suspicion cannot fail to arise that, perhaps, it is only within the framework of one or other of the monotheistic religions that complete wisdom is to be found, and not by means of philosophy either alone or even primarily.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See J. Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism, trans. D. Silverman (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964), p. 21.
See H. A. Wolfson, Philosophy of the Church Fathers, vol. 1, Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), pp. 22–3.
See the eighth of the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish Faith first formulated by Maimonides in the twelfth century and still included in the prayer book of orthodox Jews. This runs, ‘I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah, now in our possession, is the same that was given to Moses our teacher, peace be upon him.’ For the orthodox interpretation of this principle, see the discussion of the doctrine, Torah min hashamayim, or ‘Torah from Heaven’ in J. Sacks, Crisis and Covenant: Jewish Thought after the Holocaust (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1992), ch. 6, ‘Judaism and its texts’, esp. pp. 193–4.
I here follow J. N. Schofield, The Religious Background of the Bible (London, Edinburgh, Paris, Melbourne, Toronto: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1944), Book IV.
See, especially, R. Swinburne, Revelation: from Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).
Ibid., p. 83.
Ibid., p. 195.
Ibid., pp. 70–1.
Ibid., p. 72.
Ibid., p. 70.
Among philosophers who argue so are Arthur Schopenhauer, Franz Brentano, C. D. Broad and R. E. Hobart. Theologians who also deny free will in Swinburne’s sense include Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, … For details, see A. Flew, ‘Anti-social Determinism’, Philosophy, 69 (1994), 21–33.
See, especially, H. Maccoby, Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance (London: Ocean Books, 1973); The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, 1986); Judaism in the First Century (London: Sheldon Press, 1989); A Pariah People: the Anthropology ofAntisemitism (London: Constable and Co., 1996).
See, for example, G. Allen, The Evolution of the Idea of God (London: Watts and Co., 1931), esp. chs XIV-XVIII.
See B. Spinoza, Theologico-Political Treatise, in Chief Works, ed. R. H. M. Elwes (New York: Dover, 1951), vol. 1.
M. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, trans. S. Pines (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1963), vol. 2, p. 382.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2000 David Conway
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Conway, D. (2000). The Wisdom of the Book Revisited. In: The Rediscovery of Wisdom. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597129_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230597129_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41095-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-59712-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)