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


"Dianelos,Actually, I think that Jerry Wall is the most interesting and plausible defender of something ..."

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and a ..."
"That there are stupid and immoral Christians is not new nor surprising. There are stupid ..."

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and a ..."
"There will be a large segment of Christians who think it's their duty to believe ..."

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and a ..."
"Dr. Parsons, the doctrine of hell is for helping the accused, not the accusers. The ..."

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and a ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment