Advertisement

Infinity, the Neoclassical Concept of God, and Oppy

  • Daniel A. Dombrowski
Chapter

Abstract

In this article I concentrate on three issues. First, Graham Oppy’s treatment of the relationship between the concept of infinity and Zeno’s paradoxes makes apparent several problems that must be dealt with if the concept of infinity is to do any intellectual work in the philosophy of religion. Here I will expand on some insightful remarks by Oppy in an effort to adequately respond to these problems. Second, I will do the same regarding Oppy’s treatment of Kant’s first antinomy in the first critique, which deals in part with the question of whether the world had a beginning in time or if time extends infinitely into the past. And third, my examination of these two issues will inform what I have to say regarding a key topic in philosophy of religion: the question regarding the proper relationship between the infinite and the finite in the concept of God.

Keywords

Actual World Neoclassical Theism Ontological Argument Actual Occasion Cosmological Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Cobb, John. 1975. Christ in a pluralistic age. Philadelphia: Westminster.Google Scholar
  2. Dombrowski, Daniel. 2004. Divine beauty: The aesthetics of Charles Hartshorne. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dombrowski, Daniel. 2005. A platonic philosophy of religion: A process perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dombrowski, Daniel. 2006. Rethinking the ontological argument: A neoclassical theistic response. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dombrowski, Daniel. 2007. Oppy, infinity, and the neoclassical concept of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 61: 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hartshorne, Charles. 1941. Man’s vision of God. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. Hartshorne, Charles. 1962. The logic of perfection. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  8. Hartshorne, Charles. 1965. Anselm’s discovery. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  9. Hartshorne, Charles. 1967. A natural theology for our time. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  10. Hartshorne, Charles. 1970. Creative synthesis and philosophic method. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  11. Hartshorne, Charles. 1972. Whitehead’s philosophy: Selected essays, 1935–1970. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hartshorne, Charles. 1975 [1937]. Beyond humanism. Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  13. Hartshorne, Charles. 1983. Insights and oversights of great thinkers. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hartshorne, Charles. 1984a. Omnipotence and other theological mistakes. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hartshorne, Charles. 1984b. Creativity in American philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hartshorne, Charles. 1991. The philosophy of Charles Hartshorne. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  17. Hartshorne, Charles. 2000 [1953]. Philosophers speak of God. Amherst: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  18. Malone-France, Derek. 2006. Deep empiricism: Kant, Whitehead, and the necessity of philosophical theism. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  19. Moore, G.E. 1953. Some main problems of philosophy. London: George, Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  20. Oppy, Graham. 1995. Ontological arguments and belief in God. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Oppy, Graham. 1997. Countable fusion not yet proven guilty: It may be the Whiteheadian account of space whatdunnit. Analysis 57: 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oppy, Graham. 2006. Philosophical perspectives on infinity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Viney, Don. 2010. How firm a possible foundation? Modality and Hartshorne’s dipolar theism. In Metaphysics, analysis, and the grammar of God: Process and analytic voices in dialogue, ed. Randy Ramal. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  24. White-Head, A.N. 1948 [1911]. An introduction to mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. White-Head, A.N. 1953 [1925]. Science and the modern world. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  26. White-Head, A.N. 1957 [1929]. The aims of education and other essays. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. White-Head, A.N. 1958 [1938]. Modes of thought. New York: Capricorn.Google Scholar
  28. White-Head, A.N. 1967 [1933]. Adventures of ideas. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. White-Head, A.N. 1978 [1929]. Process and reality. Corrected ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Suggested Readings: Neo-classical Theism

  1. 1.Bergson, Henri. 1977. The two sources of morality and religion. Trans. Brereton. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.Bishop, John. 1993. Evil and the concept of God. Philosophical Papers 22: 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. 3.Bishop, John. 1998. Can there be alternative concepts of God? Noûs 32(2): 174–188.Google Scholar
  4. 4.Bishop, John. 2009. Towards a religiously adequate alternative to omnigod theism. Sophia 48(4).Google Scholar
  5. 5.Craig, William Lane. 2000. The only wise God: The compatibility of divine foreknowledge & human freedom. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. 6.Dombrowski, Daniel. 2006. Rethinking the ontological argument: A neoclassical theistic response. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.Forrest, Peter. 2007. Developmental theism: From pure will to unbounded love. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  8. 8.Ganssle, Gregory (ed.). 2001. God and time: Four views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.Griffin, David Ray. 2001. Reenchantment without supernaturalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.Hartshorne, Charles. 1948. The divine relativity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.Leslie, John. 1989. Universes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.Morriston, Wes. 2001. Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection: Are they compatible? Religious Studies 37: 143–160.Google Scholar
  13. 13.Nagasawa, Yujin. 2008. A new defence of Anselmian theism. Philosophical Quarterly 58: 577–596.Google Scholar
  14. 14.Whitehead, Alfred North. 2007. Religion in the making. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySeattle UniversitySeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations