Inclusion and Incarnation
A reply to Sturch
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20312482 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tim Bayne (0000-0001-8591-7907, Macquarie University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 107-109 |
| Publication date | 2003-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412502006388 |
| OpenAlex | W2047885792 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 1 |
I make three points in response to Richard Sturch's comments on my paper: I defend my interpretation of the Morris–Swinburne (M–S) account of the Incarnation; I argue that the M–S model appears to undercut the view that the unity of consciousness can be explained in terms of the self; and third, I argue that M–S model seems to entail that God has false beliefs
Consciousness · Epistemology · Incarnation · Inclusion (mineral) · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Theology · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Psychology · Social Psychology · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citations per year | 0.06 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2010 - 2010 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |