Inspiracją do napisania niniejszego artykułu były rozdziały V–VII książki Ryszarda Kleszcza Logika, metafilozofia, wszechmoc. Siedem studiów filozoficznych (2021), dotyczące tej części metafizyki, którą w terminologii scholastycznejokreślano jako filozofię Boga, a obecnie umiejscawia się ją w obrębie teologii filozoficznej lub filozofii religii. Koncentruję się na trzech pytaniach: 1) jak odróżnić badania w zakresie filozofii religii od badań w naukach o religii; 2) czy typowe dla znacznej liczby filozofów religii ograniczanie badań do monoteizmu w największych religiach świata, a w kwestiach bardziej szczegółowych (...) do chrześcijaństwa, można przekonująco uzasadnić bez ujawniania ich własnych przekonań w sprawie religii; 3) czy klasyczny teizm stanowi właściwą artykulację chrześcijańskiego znaczenia słowa „Bóg”. W odpowiedzi na pierwsze pytanie twierdzę, że filozofem religii jest ten, kto bezpośrednio lub pośrednio zajmuje pozytywne lub negatywne stanowisko w sprawie kognitywnego charakteru, a zwłaszcza prawdziwości (Kleszcz wolałby powiedzieć: „uzasadnienia”) wierzeń czy doświadczeń religijnych. Na drugie pytanie, inaczej niż Kleszcz, odpowiadam negatywnie: ujawnienie przez filozofa własnego stosunku do religii nie niweczy ideału obiektywności, natomiast promuje uczciwość wobec czytelników i eliminuje pewien rodzaj teoretycznej hipokryzji spotykany u zwolenników filozofii uprawianej w sposób rzekomo neutralny względem własnych przekonań. Moja odpowiedź na trzecie pytanie jest także negatywna. Potrzebna jest nam dzisiaj mniej zachowawcza, odważniejsza w swoich roszczeniach filozofia religii niż ta proponowana przez Ryszarda Kleszcza — taka mianowicie, która naśladuje sposób uprawiania filozofii przez dawnych mistrzów, np. przez św. Tomasza z Akwinu, polegający na poszukiwaniu filozoficznych podstaw dla chrześcijaństwa, a nie taka, która uznaje wyniki ich ustaleń, np. w kwestii natury Boga, za zasadniczo ostateczne, a korygowalne jedynie w drobnych szczegółach. (shrink)

The paper presents Ch. S. Peirce\'s attack on Cartesian epistemology as it was formulated in 1868 article Some Consequences of Four Incapacities. Peirce\'s arguments are analyzed in the context of possible Descartes\' responses. One conclusion of the paper is that Peirce uses two different notions of knowledge and science, and that the distance of his ideas from that of Descartes depends, among others, on which notion we take into account. Another conclusion is that although Peirce\'s general project of combining fallibilism (...) and anti-scepticism looks very attractive (especially in the light of what we now know about the development of science) it generates many problems that Descartes could have pointed out if he had a chance to talk to his two and a half century younger debater. Despite, however, the problems Peircean project generates, it may be regarerd as a forerunner of typical tendencies of 20th century philosophy such as e.g. fallibilism or antifoundationalism. (shrink)

In the article I refer to the philosophy of William Hasker and his proposal to reconcile respect for the basic dogmas of Christianity with the contemporary standards of knowledge and the needs of people today. In the first part I analyse Hasker’s view on the idea of Christian philosophy. Since he assumes the truthfulness of the main doctrines of Christianity, he is not opposed to being referred to as a Christian philosopher, but neither is he enthusiastic about this name. This (...) attitude is the result of his conviction that the state of absolute neutrality is not possible in philosophy and that regardless of the views accepted as true by a given thinker the requirement for good philosophy is fairness and evaluating all perspectives and beliefs for their internal coherence and their correspondence with the evidence. Therefore, Hasker first tries very carefully to reconstruct positions different from his own and to track down various difficulties in them, especially contradictions. In my opinion, however, the objection of self-contradiction is ineffective when applied to philosophical positions which, as a rule, use vague concepts. The same applies to the claim that these positions are contradictory to evidence, because one of such vague notions is also the notion of evidence. That is why philosophical claims have the extraordinary ability to persist in life or unexpectedly revive after being considered definitively dead. It does not follow from this that one cannot convincingly justify one’s position using less formal criteria. In the second part I focus on the rhetorical device used by Hasker to make his concept of God more attractive. He suggests that we should shape our concept of God based on our idea of a great man, i.e. one who educates children to live independently and is able to effectively and fairly manage large groups of people. Leaving aside the accusation of anthropomorphism, the question arises about the epistemic value of this image, which is not universal, changes over time and depends on the conditions in which people live. The content of this image proposed by Hasker isn’t also consistent with the idea of the God of Christian orthodoxy, which is dominated by traditional rather than open theism. This is where the problem of linking creative thinking and respect for Christian identity arises. Regardless of the opinion that open theism has among traditional theists, Hasker supports the concept of a strong Christian identity determined by a universally recognized creed. I propose to treat this identity a little more flexibly. (shrink)

Panentheism and classical theism. Comments on the basis of Jacek Wojtysiak’s criticism of Józef Życiński’s position The article was inspired by the tenth anniversary of the death of Archbishop Życiński and the article containing polemic with his panentheism published by Wojtysiak. Wojtysiak claims that the essence of theism is the thesis about the existential selfsufficiency of God and the resulting asymmetry of his causal relationship with the world, which consists in the fact that God can exert causal influence on the (...) world, but the world cannot influence God in this way. Since Życiński contradicts this thesis, according to Wojtysiak, his panentheism is not theism at all. I do not agree with this judgment, and what Wojtysiak calls ‘theism’ I call ‘classical theism’. Both panentheism and classical theism constitute legitimate versions of theism. Ishow that the classical theism in the version proposed by Wojtysiak is entangled in serious difficulties. One of them is that on cosmological level it harmonizes best with occasionalism, that is, with full theological determinism. Another one is connected with the thesis t that God is impassible, which deprives him of the possibility of fulfilling these pro-religious functions, which are crucial for Christianity, such as God’s experiential involvement in the history of the world. I propose that the recognition of divine passibility be the minimum condition for any panentheism or position similar to it. Meeting this condition does not require the rejection of the thesis about the classically understood divine immutability, omnipotence or the creation of the world ex nihilo, but it is conducive to the revision of these notions. I point out that revisions proposed by Życiński in his version of panentheism were incomparably smaller than those proposed by Whitehead or especially Hartshorne, but still they cannot be treated as a minor supplement to classical theism. They constitute version of panentheism or neoclassical theism, which is a much better philosophical basis for Christianity. (shrink)

A characteristic feature of the newest philosophy of religion is that it is practiced in the context of religious pluralism and atheism. Traces of the presence of this context are visible even in those texts of the supporters of theism that deal with specific issues typical of the ancient philosophy of religion, and thus related to the nature of God or God's relationship to the world. The distinguishing feature of the analytical philosophy of religion is the care of its representatives (...) for the clarity of their own statements, for the reliable paraphrasing of the views of opponents or historical figures they refer to, and that their statements and sometimes subtle semantic differences that they try to extract from various concepts are illustrated with specific examples. in order not to generalize hastily from a few cases, but to notice their differentiation--Publisher's website. (shrink)