No description available.

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Birmingham, 2000. / BLDSC reference no.: DX218423.

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-103).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1996. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 222-225).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1996. / Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 222-225).

Thesis (Ph. L.)--Catholic University of America, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-103).

Thesis (M. Div.)--Grace Theological Seminary, 1986. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 46-49).

<p> In Chapter One, an historical survey will provide a history of beauty as natural theology, beginning with Plato and extending to the mid-twentieth century. This historical research should provide context critical to the development of the argument. </p><p> In Chapter Two, the contemporary argument from beauty will be surveyed, but unlike Chapter One, analysis will be through depth and not in breadth. Two contemporary arguments from beauty will be exposited and evaluated: C. S. Lewis&rsquo;s argument from the aesthetic experience of longing, and the fine-tuning argument of Robin Collins, in which he argues for objective beauty in the universe, with God as the first-cause. Following the analysis of both arguments, there will be a general evaluative summary giving perspective on the combined research of chapters one and two and identifying key elements to be incorporated into the argument from beauty as it is developed. </p><p> In Chapter Three, focus will turn to structural elements of the argument. Here, the structure and rationale of abductive arguments will be explained, and the elements of an Inference to the Best Explanation will be delineated. Finally, the criteria that will determine the best explanation will be established, and an outline given that will forecast the argument to follow. </p><p> In Chapter Four, descriptive clarity will be given to the two hypotheses and the facts of beauty that require an explanation. First, the two explanatory hypotheses, theism and philosophical naturalism, will be plainly set out. In this context, the various evolutionary accounts of beauty that constitute philosophical naturalism will be explained. These include: natural selection, sexual selection, biophilia hypothesis, null theory, spandrel hypothesis, and social cohesion. Second, the facts of beauty will be identified, categorized, and adumbrated. The facts of beauty that will be explored are: cosmological facts, moral facts, existential facts, epistemological facts, and axiological facts.</p><p> In Chapter Five, the explanations of theism and philosophical naturalism will be elaborated and evaluated. This preliminary evaluation will set the stage for the final evaluation. After considering the explanations for each of the facts of beauty, the final evaluation will involve the inference to the best explanation based upon the explanatory criteria. </p><p> Chapter Six will be a review of the research, a summary of the argument, and a reiteration of theism as the best explanation for beauty. Lastly, general consideration will be given to possible directions for future research and arguments from beauty.</p><p>

No description available.

Søren Kierkegaard is often accused of being a fideist or irrationalist. This ispartially due to the fact that his writings allow for a wide range of possible interpretations. The idea that he is dogmatic in his approach to Christianity has led to the assumption that he was not concerned with rational disagreement. This interpretation limits the scope of Kierkegaard’s work. Ludwig Feuerbach is generally treated as a transitional figure between Hegel and Marx. This has led to an underappreciation of his unique critiques of religion. He is striking in particular for his deep knowledge and consistent use of Christian theology. However, due to the influence of later thinkers, his contributions to the study of religion are often underappreciated. The extent to which Kierkegaard was aware of Feuerbach is not known with certainty. There is no evidence that Feuerbach was aware of Kierkegaard at all. However, it is apparent that Kierkegaard had some awareness of Feuerbach. I will further argue that he rejected Feuerbach’s ideas. If Kierkegaard cannot, even in principle, provide a reason for this rejection, this would be evidence in favor of the dogmatist reading of Kierkegaard. Some interpreters have argued that Kierkegaard cannot give such a reason. This has colored their interpretations of Kierkegaard’s Feuerbach reception. Contrary to this, I argue that Kierkegaard can provide reasons to reject Feuerbach. These are reasons which do not rely on the claim that Christian doctrines are in fact true. While Kierkegaard did not explicitly describe such a response, the parts necessary for one iii are present in his writings. I argue that Feuerbach’s argument in The Essence of Christianity relies on premises that assume the falsehood of Kierkegaardian Christianity. In other words, Feuerbach’s attempt to critique Christianity cannot be an immanent one. This Kierkegaardian argument holds whether or not Christianity’s claims are true. It relies merely on a claim about what Christianity entails. To establish this claim, my method is one of rational reconstruction. I consider what arguments are present in Kierkegaard’s writings and compare them with the arguments Feuerbach presents in The Essence of Christianity, a book that we know Kierkegaard at least owned. In so doing, I show that Kierkegaard’s writings provide the resources necessary to respond to Feuerbach’s arguments. These resources are provided without relying on claiming that Christian dogmatic claims are true. This discussion shows that Feuerbach's reliance on ideas like species being makes him a “speculative thinker,” to use the Kierkegaardian terminology. This demonstrates two things. First, Kierkegaard’s understanding of Christianity does not rely on the mere assertion of dogma or irrationalism. Second, because of how strict the Kierkegaardian approach must be, it demonstrates the strength of Feuerbach’s arguments. Feuerbach’s arguments are devastating to most intellectualized forms of Christianity. Kierkegaard’s continued Christianity after exposure to Feuerbach’s ideas can only be defended based on a discontinuity between religious claims and claims of all other kinds. / Philosophy