Eric Reitan
Biographic Data
| ID | 1044716 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Eric Reitan |
| GIVEN NAMES | Eric |
| FAMILY NAME | Reitan |
| SIGNATURE | REITAN E |
| AFFILIATIONS | Oklahoma State University |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-6403-4854 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 14 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 14 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 14 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1994 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
The Moral Hope Argument
This essay develops a distinct moral argument for the reasonableness of believing in God (conceived as a perfectly good creator) inspired by the pragmatic argument for "the religious hypothesis" advanced by William James in "The Will to Believe." It also contextualizes the argument relative to familiar moral arguments, notably those of C.S. Lewis and Kant. Briefly, the argument developed here holds that when facing more than one coherent picture …
Eternally Choosing Hell
Annihilation or salvation? A philosophical case for preferring universalism to annihilationism
In God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism , we argue that for every version of the doctrine of hell there is a version of the doctrine of universal salvation that, granted traditional Christian teachings, is more philosophically defensible. This article explores whether a parallel case can be made for preferring universalism to annihilationism. While assuming for the sake of this article that the chief arguments fo…
Divine Omnipotence, Divine Sovereignty and Moral Constraints on the Prevention of Evil
In Is a Good God Logically Possible?, James Sterba uses the analogy of a just political state to develop evil-prevention principles he thinks a good God would follow. With the assumption that God is omnipotent, these principles entail that God would never permit free agents to bring about horrendous evil. But free agents routinely succeed in doing so: entailing a logical incompatibility between the world’s evils and the existence of a good, omnip…
Is God a Delusion?
Is God a Delusion ? addresses the philosophical underpinnings of the recent proliferation of popular books attacking religious beliefs. Focuses primarily on charges leveled by recent critics that belief in God is irrational and that its nature ferments violence. Balances philosophical rigor and scholarly care with an engaging, accessible style. Offers a direct response to the crop of recent anti-religion bestsellers currently generating considera…
Alan Wertheimer, Consent to Sexual Relations (Cambridge
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Self-Defense and the Principle of Generic Consistency
The article deals with the concepts of self-defense and the principle of generic consistency. The two kinds of theories of human rights are mentioned. These theories of human rights are operational and foundational theories. An operational theory is an account of how rights operate to regulate behavior. On the other hand, a foundational theory is an explanation of why people have rights at all. Moreover, it discusses the role plays by the right n…
Talbott's universalism, divine justice, and the Atonement
Thomas Talbott has argued that the following propositions are inconsistent: (1) it is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore His will) to reconcile all sinners to Himself; (2) it is within God's power to achieve His redemptive purpose for the world; (3) some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them ou…
The Moral Justification of Violence
Eternal damnation and blessed ignorance
Both Thomas Talbott and Friedrich Schleiermacher have argued, in somewhat different ways, that in the context of Christian theism the damnation of anyone would render it impossible to extend genuine blessedness to anyone else. I examine both Schleiermacher's and Talbott's version of this argument, which I call the ‘incompatibility argument', and respond to criticisms levelled by Jerry Walls and William Lane Craig. I argue that the argument is mor…
Rape as an Essentially Contested Concept
Because “rape” has such a powerful appraisive meaning, how one defines the term has normative significance. Those who define rape rigidly so as to exclude contemporary feminist understandings are therefore seeking to silence some moral perspectives “by definition.” I argue that understanding rape as an essentially contested concept allows the concept sufficient flexibility to permit open moral discourse, while at the same time preserving a core m…
Rape as an Essentially Contested Concept
Because “rape” has such a powerful appraisive meaning, how one defines the term has normative significance. Those who define rape rigidly so as to exclude contemporary feminist understandings are therefore seeking to silence some moral perspectives “by definition.” I argue that understanding rape as an essentially contested concept allows the concept sufficient flexibility to permit open moral discourse, while at the same time preserving a core m…
Punishment and Community
There seems to be nearly universal agreement that society cannot do without some form of criminal punishment. At the same time, it is generally acknowledged that punishment, involving as it does the imposition of hardship and suffering, stands in need of justification. What form such a justification should take, however, is a matter of considerable contention, in part because of basic theoretical disagreements on the nature of moral obligation, a…
The Irreconcilability of Pacifism and Just War Theory
Rape as an Essentially Contested Concept
Because “rape” has such a powerful appraisive meaning, how one defines the term has normative significance. Those who define rape rigidly so as to exclude contemporary feminist understandings are therefore seeking to silence some moral perspectives “by definition.” I argue that understanding rape as an essentially contested concept allows the concept sufficient flexibility to permit open moral discourse, while at the same time preserving a core m…
The Irreconcilability of Pacifism and Just War Theory
Punishment and Community
There seems to be nearly universal agreement that society cannot do without some form of criminal punishment. At the same time, it is generally acknowledged that punishment, involving as it does the imposition of hardship and suffering, stands in need of justification. What form such a justification should take, however, is a matter of considerable contention, in part because of basic theoretical disagreements on the nature of moral obligation, a…
Rape as an Essentially Contested Concept
Because “rape” has such a powerful appraisive meaning, how one defines the term has normative significance. Those who define rape rigidly so as to exclude contemporary feminist understandings are therefore seeking to silence some moral perspectives “by definition.” I argue that understanding rape as an essentially contested concept allows the concept sufficient flexibility to permit open moral discourse, while at the same time preserving a core m…
Rape as an Essentially Contested Concept
Because “rape” has such a powerful appraisive meaning, how one defines the term has normative significance. Those who define rape rigidly so as to exclude contemporary feminist understandings are therefore seeking to silence some moral perspectives “by definition.” I argue that understanding rape as an essentially contested concept allows the concept sufficient flexibility to permit open moral discourse, while at the same time preserving a core m…
The Moral Justification of Violence
Eternal damnation and blessed ignorance
Both Thomas Talbott and Friedrich Schleiermacher have argued, in somewhat different ways, that in the context of Christian theism the damnation of anyone would render it impossible to extend genuine blessedness to anyone else. I examine both Schleiermacher's and Talbott's version of this argument, which I call the ‘incompatibility argument', and respond to criticisms levelled by Jerry Walls and William Lane Craig. I argue that the argument is mor…
Talbott's universalism, divine justice, and the Atonement
Thomas Talbott has argued that the following propositions are inconsistent: (1) it is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore His will) to reconcile all sinners to Himself; (2) it is within God's power to achieve His redemptive purpose for the world; (3) some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them ou…
Self-Defense and the Principle of Generic Consistency
The article deals with the concepts of self-defense and the principle of generic consistency. The two kinds of theories of human rights are mentioned. These theories of human rights are operational and foundational theories. An operational theory is an account of how rights operate to regulate behavior. On the other hand, a foundational theory is an explanation of why people have rights at all. Moreover, it discusses the role plays by the right n…
Alan Wertheimer, Consent to Sexual Relations (Cambridge
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Is God a Delusion?
Is God a Delusion ? addresses the philosophical underpinnings of the recent proliferation of popular books attacking religious beliefs. Focuses primarily on charges leveled by recent critics that belief in God is irrational and that its nature ferments violence. Balances philosophical rigor and scholarly care with an engaging, accessible style. Offers a direct response to the crop of recent anti-religion bestsellers currently generating considera…
Eternally Choosing Hell
Annihilation or salvation? A philosophical case for preferring universalism to annihilationism
In God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism , we argue that for every version of the doctrine of hell there is a version of the doctrine of universal salvation that, granted traditional Christian teachings, is more philosophically defensible. This article explores whether a parallel case can be made for preferring universalism to annihilationism. While assuming for the sake of this article that the chief arguments fo…
Divine Omnipotence, Divine Sovereignty and Moral Constraints on the Prevention of Evil
In Is a Good God Logically Possible?, James Sterba uses the analogy of a just political state to develop evil-prevention principles he thinks a good God would follow. With the assumption that God is omnipotent, these principles entail that God would never permit free agents to bring about horrendous evil. But free agents routinely succeed in doing so: entailing a logical incompatibility between the world’s evils and the existence of a good, omnip…
The Moral Hope Argument
This essay develops a distinct moral argument for the reasonableness of believing in God (conceived as a perfectly good creator) inspired by the pragmatic argument for "the religious hypothesis" advanced by William James in "The Will to Believe." It also contextualizes the argument relative to familiar moral arguments, notably those of C.S. Lewis and Kant. Briefly, the argument developed here holds that when facing more than one coherent picture …
Philosophy (12 works) · Epistemology (10 works) · Sociology (9 works) · War, Ethics, and Justification (8 works) · Psychology (7 works) · Political science (6 works) · Law (5 works) · Theology and Philosophy of Evil (5 works) · Law and economics (4 works) · Contemporary philosophy (3 works)