The Cosmological Argument
I. Professor William L. Rowe begins an interesting paper on the Cosmological Argument by stating that his purpose is not to resurrect it' but to uncover, clarify, and examine some of the philosophical concepts and theses essential to the reasoning exhibited in the argument'. (49) Howeve...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[1975]
|
In: |
Religious studies
Year: 1975, Volume: 11, Issue: 4, Pages: 411-420 |
Online Access: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) Volltext (doi) |
Summary: | I. Professor William L. Rowe begins an interesting paper on the Cosmological Argument by stating that his purpose
is not to resurrect it' but to uncover, clarify, and examine some of the philosophical concepts and theses essential to the reasoning exhibited in the argument'. (49) However, in the concluding pages of his paper, Rowe is at some pains to show that his discussion does at least demonstrate that the Cosmological Argument is beyond the reach of criticisms levelled against it in the works of its classical critics, Hume and Kant and their modern-day counterparts. To quote his concluding remark: Like most important philosophical arguments, it appears that the Cosmological Argument is neither as good as its supporters have claimed it to be nor as bad as its critics have believed.' (61) Now I have long suspected that some such estimate of the Cosmological Argument was correct; however I do not think that Rowe's discussions in his paper establish his contention that the reports of the death of the Cosmological Argument have been premature. Nevertheless, Rowe's uncovering of the reasoning that lies behind the argument does have the merit of laying bare the precise point from which, as well as the direction in which, the defence of the argument should proceed if we are to truly make some headway on this hoary topic. In what follows, I will first try to show why I think Rowe's discussion fails to establish his conclusion and thereafter try to give the outline of a more successful strategy for arriving at the same conclusion. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1469-901X |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S003441250000874X |