A major problem with the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is that Jesus is meant to be both God and man. Richard Swinburne attempts to overcome the problem by having it that in him there are two consciousnesses – the consciousness of being God, and the consciousness of being a man. This position is rejected, on the Aristotelian ground that one consciousness is enough to explain with dignity the mind of Christ.

In a recent Chapter, Alexander Pruss attempts to defend the traditional Christian doctrine of Eucharistic Transubstantiation. It is objected that his case is unconvincing, since it involves accidents and dispositions existing without subjects, and an inadequate account of the Eucharistic presence of Christ. It is argued that the doctrine can yet be maintained, along Aristotelian-Thomistic lines.

The reference to man as animal rationale has traditionally been used to highlight rationality as marking a qualitative gap between human beings and animals. This assumption has been questioned in a similar way by the approaches of Alasdair MacIntyre and John Dewey, who agree that before we can make adequate sense of man’s rationality, we have to draw attention to animality as the common trait of human and nonhuman living beings. However, while MacIntyre takes human dependence to show ‘why human (...) beings need the virtues,’ Dewey considers it as a starting point to argue for the necessity of what he calls ‘natural piety.’ In my paper I shall elaborate some implications of this difference, guided by the question whether Dewey’s answer contributes to a re-invention of religious categories into the naturalistic view on rationality and morality. (shrink)

The accuracy of Aristotle’s definition of place is defended in terms of his form-matter theory. This theory is in turn defended against the objectionable notion that it entails matter is ultimately characterless.

This paper seeks to defend the Aristotelian idea that the concern of ethics is health of the soul; and that this consists in reasonableness/virtue.

This paper considers John Lamont’s claim that the Bible is a basic form of evidence for the existence of God. It is argued to the contrary that its admissibility depends upon God’s existence being an acceptable real prior possibility.

In a recent Chapter, Alexander Pruss attempts to defend the traditional Christian doctrine of Eucharistic Transubstantiation. It is objected that his case is unconvincing, since it involves accidents and dispositions existing without subjects, and an inadequate account of the Eucharistic presence of Christ. It is argued that the doctrine can yet be maintained, along Aristotelian-Thomistic lines.

There is a prima facie case of unfairness against God unless Self-revelation is given by the deity to all people. The possible replies that God's Self-revelation has always and everywhere been available to everyone through many religions; or that special knowledge of God is a matter of divine gratuity; or that more is expected of those who receive such enlightenment; or that it comes as a moral reward; are found to be wanting. Nevertheless, provided there remains an argument for selective (...) divine Self-revelation in terms of spiritual readiness, the case against God remains unproven. (shrink)

The paper contends that, despite certain opinions to the contrary, St. Thomas Aquinas’s fourth argument for the existence of God in the Summa theologica admits of an intelligible interpretation, consistent with a systematic approach to the Five Ways. The argument is to the effect that, since the Third Way is about the conservation of corruptible species in an eternal universe, it might be expected that the Fourth Way would address the question of why corruptible species exist at all. And, in (...) fact, the Fourth Way readily admits of such an interpretation: an informed universe requires an Informer. (shrink)

In a recent discussion, Trenton Merricks concludes that we cannot understand how God might miraculously bring it about that there will be the resurrection of the body. It is contended to the contrary, that it is not utterly mysterious how God might give us our bodies back.