Swinburne on the Resurrection: Negative versus Christian Ramified Natural Theology

ABSTRACT: We consider the impact of negative natural theology on the prospects of Christian ramified natural theology with reference to Richard Swinburne’s argument for the Incarnation and Resurrection. We argue that Swinburne’s pivotal claim—that God would not allow deceptive evidence to exist for the Incarnation and Resurrection—is refuted by key evidence from negative natural theology. We argue, further, that Swinburne’s argument omits dominating items of evidence of negative natural theology which seem to critically weaken the probability of the Incarnation and Resurrection. Negative natural theology thus serves as a formidable obstacle to Christian ramified natural theology.

Robert Greg Cavin and Carlos Colombetti, “Swinburne on the Resurrection:  Negative versus Christian Ramified Natural Theology,” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2013

LINK

"Premise (1) is the basic factual claim upon which the argument rests. This claim seems ..."

Feser’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Hello Ron and Michael, are you speaking loosely when you speak of a moments or ..."

Feser’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Because a process by definition entails change. if we say something is a process we ..."

Feser’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Why do you suppose that a thing must change to proceed, or to act as ..."

Feser’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment