<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">  
  <channel>         
    <title>Authors : Leland Harper</title>    
    <link>https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//index.html?id=878</link>
    <description>Index des publications de Authors Leland Harper</description>
    <language>fr</language>    
    <ttl>0</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Epistemic Deism Revisited</title>  
      <link>https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4733-2015-1-04.html</link>
      <description>In 2013 I wrote a paper entitled “A Deistic Discussion of Murphy and Tracy’s Accounts of God’s Limited Activity in the Natural World” in which I criticized the views of Nancey Murphy and Thomas Tracy, labeling their views as something that I called “epistemic deism.” Since the publication of that paper another, a similar view by Bradley Monton was brought to my attention, one called “noninterventionist special divine action theory.” In take this paper as an opportunity to accomplish several goals. First, I take it as an opportunity to clarify and correct some of my previous claims.  Secondly, I present and analyze Monton’s view. And, finally, I discuss the similarities that Monton’s view holds with those of Murphy’s and Tracy’s and discuss how they all can be reduced to being part of the same family of ontological views which are, ultimately, implausible.   </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:37:43 +0100</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:37:43 +0100</lastBuildDate>      
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4733-2015-1-04.html</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Deistic Discussion of Murphy and Tracy’s Accounts of God’s Limited Activity in the Natural World</title>  
      <link>https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4673-18-1-spring-2013-06.html</link>
      <description>Seemingly, in an attempt to appease both the micro-physicists and the classical theists, Nancey Murphy and Thomas Tracy have each developed ac- counts of God which allow for Him to act, in an otherwise causally closed natural world, through various micro-processes at the subatomic level. I argue that not only do each of these views skew the accounts of both micro-physics and theism just enough to preclude the appeasement of either group but that both accounts can aptly be classified as, what I term, epistemic deism. I go on to argue that epis- temic deism is a weak brand of deism that ultimately provides us with little to no answers to any of serious questions discussed within the philosophy or religion. </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:40:27 +0100</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:40:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>      
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://fp.waik.stronazen.pl:443//4673-18-1-spring-2013-06.html</guid>
    </item>         </channel>
</rss>