In all cases, however, to accept such statements as true is to challenge the full autonomy of science and history within their own proper spheres; and it is this challenge to a genuinely secular outlook, rather than any particular statement in itself, which
makes classical theism so widely unacceptable to contemporary men.
Not exact matches
Whatever orthodox believers may think of Kenny's journey over these decades from
classical theism to something vaguer, he is at least an equal - opportunity basher: For his aversion to absolutism can equally well be employed against the New Atheists, who affect an apodictic absolutism in their argumentation that
makes them as impregnable to counterevidence as anything found in a creationist textbook.
We can say as a general answer to the above criticisms that what they are actually objecting to is the God of
classical theism, the God who is other - worldly, timeless, the God who
makes paper plates.
That this was a difficult, if not indeed impossible, undertaking had already been
made evident by the parallel efforts of the Jewish thinker, Philo of Alexandria, who has perhaps the best claim to be the founder of
classical theism.
In any event, such a
theism definitely seems to overcome the second main objection that reasonable men today
make to the
classical position.
Panentheists of the Whiteheadian and Hartshornean variety have much to offer at this junction (since a very explicit effort is
made to reconcile
classical theism and pantheism), but considering that position would be a digression from our purpose here.
Now I come close to the theme of this article: one writer, and I have found no other, in the early Middle Ages attacked
classical theism head - on precisely on its two most vulnerable points — its affirmation of, or failure definitely to reject, unqualified theological determinism, and its commitment to endless posthumous careers for human persons,
making them in that respect rivals to God.