Religious Obedience and Moral Autonomy
It has become fashionable to try to prove the impossibility of there being a God. Findlay's celebrated ontological disproof has in the past quarter century given rise to vigorous controversy. More recently James Rachels has offered a moral argument intended to show that there could not be a bei...
Auteur principal: | |
---|---|
Type de support: | Électronique Article |
Langue: | Anglais |
Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publié: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[1975]
|
Dans: |
Religious studies
Année: 1975, Volume: 11, Numéro: 3, Pages: 265-281 |
Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
Résumé: | It has become fashionable to try to prove the impossibility of there being a God. Findlay's celebrated ontological disproof has in the past quarter century given rise to vigorous controversy. More recently James Rachels has offered a moral argument intended to show that there could not be a being worthy of worship. In this paper I shall examine the position Rachels is arguing for in some detail. I shall endeavor to show that his argument is unsound and, more interestingly, that the genuine philosophical perplexity which motivates it can be dispelled without too much difficulty. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1469-901X |
Contient: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412500008416 |