In:
Religious Studies, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 13, No. 2 ( 1977-06), p. 155-165
Abstract:
A number of writers have recently taken fresh looks at the many centuries-old ontological proof of Anselm. 1 Three of these writers seem to agree with me that traditional ways of treating this topic have been inadequate and that the proof, whether or not it is a sufficient reason for belief, is not without important bearings for philosophy of religion. These writers are Malcolm, Findlay, and Plantinga. With each of these I find considerable common ground, and they have all indicated to me that they are aware of this. In the present article on the topic, however, I wish to discuss a fourth writer, who differs rather sharply from the other three and particularly from me. Since Hick's views are shared in certain respects by what I take to be a main stream of contemporary thought, particularly in Britain, it seems worth while to accept the challenge he offers.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0034-4125
,
1469-901X
DOI:
10.1017/S003441250000994X
Language:
English
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Publication Date:
1977
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1466479-3
detail.hit.zdb_id:
128950-0
SSG:
0
