Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

From Here to Theology: Response to Joshua Farris

100%

Priest S.

Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture

2023

vol. 7

issue 4

5-13

Joshua Farris usefully applies my distinction between conditioned and de-conditioned philosophy to some limits of science, and the disclosure of the soul. It is argued that further de-conditioning is conducive to answering the profound philosophical questions: What is it to be now?, and What is it to be? but these answers are only adequate when they entail the existence of God. It follows that physicalism, determinism, and naturalism are false, and that science (knowingly or unknowingly) presupposes theology.

God and Some Limits of Science

100%

Priest S.

Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture

2023

vol. 7

issue 3

4-30

Some problems are too subjective, too intimate, too proximal, to admit in principle of any scientific solution: Why is anything you? Is there free will? Is death the end? Other problems are too objective, too macroscopic: Why is there a universe? Why is there anything? What is it to be? Why does mathematics exist? Why does anything happen? Scientific explanation is therefore essentially subject to at least two types of limit, subjective and objective, even though other problems prima facie straddle the subjective/objective divide: What is consciousness? Why is there such a time as the present? Why is there any distinction between right and wrong? Classical (Newtonian-Einsteinian) science largely brackets these problems, but the interpretations of quantum physics variously force them upon us. They only admit of solutions if God exists, there is free-will, and, if some existence is your existence, then you are an immortal soul.

Refine search results

2 Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture

2 Priest S.

2 2023

Search results

From Here to Theology: Response to Joshua Farris

God and Some Limits of Science