Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T02:30:17.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Compositional science and religious philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2005

LEONARD ANGEL
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Humanities, Douglas College, PO Box 2503, New Westminster BC, V3L 5B2, Canada

Abstract

Religious thought often assumes that the principle of physical causal completeness (PCC) is false. But those who explicitly deny or doubt PCC, including William Alston, W. D. Hart, Tim Crane, Paul Moser and David Yandell, Charles Taliaferro, Keith Yandell, Dallas Willard, William Vallicella, Frank Dilley, and, recently, David Chalmers, have ignored not only the explicit but also the implicit grounds for acceptance of PCC. I review the explicit grounds, and extend the hitherto implicit grounds, which together constitute a greater challenge to contemporary religious philosophy than has been realized. Religious philosophers need to find a better way around PCC than has been found, or, if PCC is unavoidable, religious philosophers need to work toward a worldview that both accepts PCC and defends strong forms of religious experience.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)