Anselmian adversities
Two competing metatheologies - approaches that propose a certain starting point for generating a proper account of the nature of God - are Perfect Being Theology (PBT), the approach to theology originating with Anselm in his efforts to find a way of demonstrating that such a perfect being exists, an...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2020]
|
| Dans: |
Religious studies
Année: 2020, Volume: 56, Numéro: 3, Pages: 318-332 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Anselm, Canterbury, Erzbischof, Heiliger 1033-1109
/ Attribut de Dieu
/ Perfection
/ Schöpferkraft Gottes
|
| RelBib Classification: | AB Philosophie de la religion NBC Dieu |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | Two competing metatheologies - approaches that propose a certain starting point for generating a proper account of the nature of God - are Perfect Being Theology (PBT), the approach to theology originating with Anselm in his efforts to find a way of demonstrating that such a perfect being exists, and Creator Theology (CT). This article argues that CT has significant advantages over PBT. The adversities that afflict PBT, to which CT is immune, are these: the first concerns parsimony in the ontology of divinity, and the second concerns the explanation of contingency itself. CT generates a simpler defence of monotheism and an account of contingency, whereas PBT struggles to defend monotheism and has no resources for generating an account of contingency, an account needed in order to defend the central claims of the ontological argument. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412518000604 |