As the most well-known modern Japanese philosopher around the world, Nishida Kitarō’s (西田幾多郎) (1870–1945) Buddhist-inspired synthesis of Western philosophy into a mature and sophisticated non-dualism has been studied from a variety of angles. As the main focus of his works tends to be on the expansion of true self-awareness, less attention has been paid to his account of human relations, especially as developed in his essay “I and Thou” (Watashi to nanji, 私と汝). This dissertation aims to address this with a thorough analysis of this essay, including comparisons with other thinkers such as Martin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas, and his own student Nishitani Keiji. The pair of “I” and “thou” will be examined through the lens of temporality, alterity, and ethics as it emerges in this text and connects with his other works. These analyses will be bookended with an overview of Nishida’s early philosophy on one side and his entry into political thought late in his life, with an eye to how persons and their relation to the world and each other was theorized at these points. Although much has been made of the significant changes in Nishida’s philosophy over time, I conclude with some thoughts on his relative unity on the nature of the true individual personality, which is established within a complex dialectic of oppositions to others grounded in the non-dual foundation of absolute nothingness. / Religion

No description available.

No description available.

At the core of the human being is a longing to live a meaningful and integrated life. In an effort to understand what the integrated life entails, this thesis compares theological, legal, and spiritual sources in order to understand the practical human faculty known as the conscience. The interdisciplinary dialogue is significant because it takes into account the multiple facets of conscience and how it relates to decision-making. The comparison between these different sources reveals the necessary balancing between an individual’s internal and external worlds. This thesis also demonstrates the inherent relationality of the human being and the importance of an individual’s membership in his or her communities. Although the journey towards a holistic and integrated life is complex, this thesis frames the important questions relating to the conscience so that an individual can seriously work towards living a holistic and integrated life.

No description available.

The concept of “atonement” in the doctrine of salvation is one of the most fascinating and challenging areas of theology. There are so many theories in the historical development of the doctrine of salvation. Those theories are varied with some mutually compatible and others not. They offered many different interpretations on the death of Christ. Besides all these, there raises a question, what is the real purpose of the death of Christ? Undoubtedly, there is a hidden rich theological meaning behind the suffering and death of Jesus. Why did Jesus have to die on the Cross? This is a perennial question for many, specifically for young Catholic people today. What is the significant meaning of his suffering and death? Was Christ’s suffering and crucifixion really God’s plan? How is Christ’s death on the Cross related to the Christian understanding of salvation today? To answer these questions in the context of modern believers, especially young Catholic people, who are preparing to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, this paper comparatively examines the question: Is Jesus’ death on the Cross a satisfaction for the sins of humanity or a demonstration of God’s love? Since this paper has focused on the life and thought of young Catholic people, at various points I do attempt to engage the theological understandings of the doctrine of salvation. In other words, though the focus is on dogmatic theology it also has a contextual focus. While providing a more meaningful interpretation of the death of Jesus for young people, I would like to make a claim that as a “God-Man,” Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice in order to redeem humanity; but at the same time, his death on the Cross was a more powerful affirmation of the love of God for humanity. That is, the atonement of Christ is both the satisfaction of our sins and the demonstration of God’s love. Atonement is a vast subject, implicating the whole field of theology. There are biblical metaphors of atonement and there are theological theories of atonement. This research paper deals with the latter. It is of doing historical theology in a systematic perspective. There are historical theologians who each had something valuable to say in their time. Among those theologians, I would like to examine two theories of atonement, such as Anselm’s satisfactory theory and Peter Abelard’s moral influence theory. I will also discuss a feminine perspective of atonement using the imagery of San Juana de la Cruz and Julian of Norwich. Finally, I address the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where the sinner enjoys the forgiveness of sins and the gift of divine love. Ultimately, I argue that dying to sin and rising to new life in the Sacrament of Reconciliation has its foundation in the atonement of Christ’s suffering and death. This atonement is best understood for young people as “atonement of love,” an Anselmian and Abelardian that is expressed through feminine imagery of God as a mother always caring, loving, embracing, sacrificing and willingly suffering for her children. This research paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter defines the term “atonement” and discusses the “satisfaction theory” of Anselm. It discusses how to understand the manner in which the forgiveness of human sins is related to the death of Christ on the Cross. The second chapter studies the Cross as a demonstration of God’s love. In the view of Peter Abelard’s “moral influence theory,” this section explains why and how Christ’s death is to be understood as a demonstration of the love of God. The third chapter analyses the “maternal imagery” of Juana de la Cruz and Julian of Norwich’s reflection on the Passion of Christ through a feminist perspective. While critically evaluating these theories, the fourth chapter addresses how the Sacrament of Reconciliation itself can be renewed through the atonement theology, which holds together Anselm, Abelard and feminist theology. To my understanding, Calvary is full of mystery and contradiction, and our minds cannot fully cope with Christ on a Cross, yet there is a central message, and it is the message that Christ has reconciled the sinful humanity with God. Through his forgiving and suffering love, specifically by his divine will of reconciliation, this divine embrace has become proximate to every human life. In this divine reconciliation, can we compartmentalize his suffering and death in a constraint particular view? It may not, and should not. It has diversity of characters in its nature itself. In such a situation, can we conclude – Christ’s suffering and death is only for forgiveness of sins? Or can we say that is it only a demonstration of God’s love? I would rather say that in the Cross both the love of God and forgiveness to humanity go hand in hand. They are inseparable in the suffering and death of Christ. We should take careful notice of the motive and the means of God’s redemption. It is God’s own steadfast love that moves his action to redeem the world and humanity in Christ. It is out of his abundant love for his creation and his creatures. To sum it up, in view of what Jesus did for us on the Cross, love is not an option that we may or may not accept, but a definite debt that we must pay. Hence, I would say that as a “God-Man,” Christ paid the required satisfaction in order to redeem humanity, but at the same time, his death on the Cross was also a more powerful affirmation of the love of God for humanity. Therefore, Jesus’ death on the Cross is the pattern and an example to be followed. Christ’s atonement served many other good purposes – including showing solidarity with humanity in the sufferings which he causes us to endure for good reasons, giving us an example of how to live, revealing to us important truths. Finally, the theological understanding of Jesus’ suffering and death is a concrete foundation of Christian moral living. In light of this, Anselm’s satisfaction theory and Abelard’s moral influence theory both offer a critical resolution to the young people in this modern situation. That is, “love and forgiveness” is the foundation of Christian moral living. This interpretation of “forgiveness” and “love” may help them to find the real meaning in following Christ, who suffered and died on the Cross. The constructive thinking of Christ’s suffering as related to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I believe, may help the young people to form the structure of their new lives in Christ. The brutal suffering and death of Jesus on the Cross, undoubtedly, touches every aspect of the lives of believers. Those who believe, specifically the young people are thereby animated to be a witnessing community in loving engagement with the modern world, through the power of Christ. It is in this sense, I suggest, that Christ’s suffering love and forgiving love might be proclaimed and witnessed in this world. The God who revealed his love in Jesus Christ is the God who shows a particular concern for those in need, and that his children are called to translate love into action on behalf of the needy. I believe true love can only be with actions and in truth.

<p>Bayesian arguments play an important role in debates about the existence of God in natural theology. A successful Bayesian argument for theism should show that, relative to competing hypotheses such as naturalism, theism does not have a very low prior probability and is better able to explain certain general features of the world. Proponents of such arguments for theism, such as Richard Swinburne, have argued that there is no tension between the prior probability and the explanatory power of theism because certain of God’s fundamental attributes – omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect freedom – jointly entail the explanatorily powerful attribute of perfect goodness. If this is correct, then ascribing perfect goodness to God does not make the theistic hypothesis any more complex than does the ascription to God of those fundamental attributes. However, this argument presupposes the truth of a certain package of controversial metaethical claims. I argue that we have good reasons to reject this package of claims.</p> <p>After introducing these key concepts and responding to an objection in the first chapter, I map out models of divine motivation – pure rationalist, modified rationalist, and Humean models – in the second and third chapters. Pure rationalism holds that God is perfectly rational and perfectly free from non-rational causal influences, including non-rational desires. On this model, God is motivated by objective reasons alone. Chapter two explicates and assesses the pure rationalist accounts of Swinburne and Mark Murphy while chapter three develops the modified rationalist and Humean alternatives and argues that these models better handle problems of divine creation and freedom than do pure rationalist models. According to modified rationalism, God is motivated by the recognition of objective reasons, but is also motivated by brute preferences or desires. Humean models hold that all of God’s motivation derives from brute preferences or desires. The fourth chapter focuses on moral motivation, primarily the Humean theory of motivation. I develop a more permissive, and so more easily defensible, version of Humeanism. The fifth and final chapter brings together my defense of Humeanism and discussion of divine motivation to argue that there is strong reason to accept the Humean model of divine motivation. However, accepting this model comes with a cost to the Bayesian natural theological argument for God’s existence because it is incompatible with the claim that God’s being omniscient and perfectly free jointly entail God’s being perfectly good.</p>

Nyāya is the premier realist school of philosophy in classical India. It is also the home of a sophisticated epistemology and natural theology. This dissertation presents a distinctive interpretation of Nyāya’s epistemology and considers how it may be developed in response to various classical and contemporary challenges. I argue that it is best understood as a type of reliabilism, provided relevant qualifications. Moreover, I show that a number of apparently distinct features of Nyāya’s approach to knowledge tightly cohere when seen as components of a thoroughgoing epistemological disjunctivism. I defend Nyāya epistemology as a viable contemporary option, illustrating how it avoids problems faced by generic reliabilism. In the second portion of the dissertation, I examine the way in which Nyāya’s knowledge sources (perception, inference, and testimony) are deployed in support of a theistic metaphysics, highlighting Nyāya’s principled extension of its views of knowledge acquisition. In an appendix, I provide a full translation and commentary on an argument for God’s existence by Vācaspati Miśra (a 10th century philosopher who is unique in having shaped several distinct schools), found in his commentary on Nyāya-sūtra 4.1.21. / text

No description available.

Permission from the author to digitize this work is pending. Please contact the ICS library if you would like to view this work.