{"id":11495,"date":"2010-07-02T19:32:21","date_gmt":"2010-07-02T19:32:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/07\/02\/robert-oakes-weighs-in-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers\/"},"modified":"2010-07-02T19:32:21","modified_gmt":"2010-07-02T19:32:21","slug":"robert-oakes-weighs-in-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/07\/02\/robert-oakes-weighs-in-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers\/","title":{"rendered":"Robert Oakes Weighs in on the God of the Philosophers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">I got a phone call from philosopher of religion <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/philpapers.org\/asearch.pl?sqc=&amp;onlineOnly=off&amp;showCategories=on&amp;filterMode=authors&amp;newWindow=on&amp;proOnly=off&amp;categorizerOn=&amp;searchStr=Oakes%2C+Robert&amp;publishedOnly=&amp;hideAbstracts=&amp;sort=pubYear&amp;filterByAreas=&amp;freeOnly=&amp;year=&amp;format=html&amp;start=&amp;limit=&amp;jlist=&amp;ap_c1=&amp;ap_c2=&amp;ap_c3=\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Robert Oakes<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Georgia\"> yesterday.&#0160; In the course of a lengthy chat, I mentioned my <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2010\/06\/pascal-and-buber-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers.html\"><font face=\"Georgia\">recent post on Pascal and Buber<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Georgia\"> and&#0160;asked him what he thought of it.&#0160; Today I received the following from him by e-mail:<\/font><\/p>\n<blockquote dir=\"ltr\">\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Very good to talk with you.&#0160; Short comment on that <em>El Stupido<\/em> notion of Buber-Pascal. The idea, presumably, is that the God of&#0160; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob &#0160;is a proper object of worship, while the God of the Philosophers is&#0160; a bloodless abstraction. But, of course, God (for the philosophical&#0160;&#0160;theist) is that than which a greater is metaphysically impossible. So: is a being Who is worthy of worship greater (<em>ceteris paribus<\/em>) than&#0160;one who is not? Of course. End of issue, No? <\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">An admirable instance of&#0160; pithiness.&#0160; Bob&#39;s argument could be&#0160;extended as follows.&#0160; A quintessentially philosophical definition of &#39;God&#39; is the one that derives from Anselm of Canterbury:&#0160; God is that than which no greater can be conceived.&#0160; Borrowing the phrase &#39;great-making property&#39; from Plantinga, we can say that God instantiates all great-making properties.&#0160; Now being worthy of worship is a great-making property. Because no concept, idea, or abstraction is worthy of worship, it follows from the philosophical definition alone, without appeal to any (putative) revelation or anything from religion, that the God of the philosophers cannot be a concept, idea, or abstraction.&#0160; <\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">But not only that.&#0160; It also follows from the Anselmian definition that nothing short of a worship-worthy being could be God.&#0160; So a First Cause could not count as God for a philosophical theist who operates&#0160;with the concept of God&#0160; in Judeo-Christian monotheism.&#0160; Within this tradition the God of philosophy is not different from the God of&#0160; religion.&#0160; It is the same God, but approached via discursive reason rather than via &#0160;faith in revelation.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\"><\/font>&#0160;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I got a phone call from philosopher of religion Robert Oakes yesterday.&#0160; In the course of a lengthy chat, I mentioned my recent post on Pascal and Buber and&#0160;asked him what he thought of it.&#0160; Today I received the following from him by e-mail: Very good to talk with you.&#0160; Short comment on that El &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/07\/02\/robert-oakes-weighs-in-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Robert Oakes Weighs in on the God of the Philosophers&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[674,331,143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abraham-and-isaac","category-athens-and-jerusalem","category-god"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11495\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}