Papers by Patrick Richmond
Leading contemporary philosophers of religion such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga have ... more Leading contemporary philosophers of religion such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga have appealed to some sort of religious experience in defending the propriety of religious belief. Recently, best-selling atheistic books such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell have popularised new scientific explanations that suggest that religious belief is a natural product of evolution. In this paper, I sketch the views of Plantinga and Swinburne, outline some of the recent scientific explanations of religious experience and belief and discuss their possible implications for the propriety of religious belief.
Science & Christian Belief, Vol 16, No. 2 • 139 1 See Kane, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Free ... more Science & Christian Belief, Vol 16, No. 2 • 139 1 See Kane, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, New York: Oxford University Press (2002), for a recent overview of the whole field of debate. 2 Note that these same terms, compatibilism and incompatibilism, may be used to label positions in other debates e.g. about the compatibility of Christianity with a physicalist view of the person. To avoid confusion I will be using these terms only in the sense defined above. PATRICK RICHMOND Neuroscientific Determinism and the Problem of Evil
Richard Dawkins has popularised the argument that Darwinism leaves God looking unnecessary and ex... more Richard Dawkins has popularised the argument that Darwinism leaves God looking unnecessary and extremely improbable. God would have to be even more complicated than his creatures and so even more in need of explanation than they are, but no explanation is appropriate. This paper attempts to clarify the argument and examine responses to it. It investigates claims that Darwinism does not explain everything, that no explanation of God’s complexity is needed, that God’s complexity is explained in terms of factual or logical necessity, and that God is simple, not complex. None of these responses seems completely convincing. Finally it argues that God’s knowledge of the actual world can be explained in terms of his irreducible ability to choose among alternatives based on their value, and his unlimited awareness of alternatives needs no complex specification and need not be organised, statistically improbable or composed of parts.
Theology, 1989
A biblical understanding of atonement is concerned above all with the restoration of mutual, undi... more A biblical understanding of atonement is concerned above all with the restoration of mutual, undistorted, unpolluted divine/human relationship, not with the appeasing of a God angered by the misdeeds of his creatures.' 1 This statement by Alan Mann is representative of the view of a number of theologians who reject the concept of penal substitution as the principal means, or even as a subordinate means, of understanding the significance of the death of Christ. One starting point for this rejection is the objection that such an understanding entails the belief that God could not save sinners until he had first exercised violence on his son, and that the unacceptability of such violence indicates that penal substitution cannot be the right way to understand the significance of the cross. 2 This then leads to attempts to show that the concept is not well-founded in Scripture and even represents a misinterpretation of scriptural teaching. 3 This view is taken by a number of theologians including among conservative evangelicals Joel Green and Mark Baker, Stephen Travis and Stephen Chalke. 4 We are thus conducting a discussion within the family among people who agree that we are saved from our sins solely by grace through faith on the grounds that God sent his Son to die in our place and for our sins and who want to understand more fully what this means and what it does not mean. I shall argue that the doctrine is well-founded in Scripture and that it is defensible against the objections brought against it. And I hope that it may be possible to do so in such a way that, whatever may be the problems with the terminology, all of us may be able to recognise the validity and, indeed, the centrality of what is known by the term 'penal substitution' instead of repudiating the concept. I am not here to win a debate but to try to achieve a consensus on the basis of acceptance of what Scripture teaches. 5
Faith and Philosophy, 2006
Faith and Philosophy, 2002
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1997
Uploads
Papers by Patrick Richmond