Charles Hartshorne's global argument for God's existence :

The idea of combining several arguments for theism--a cumulative case--is not original with Hartshorne. However, few philosophers have self-consciously employed this strategy. This is unfortunate insofar as it makes the case for theism seem weaker than it is.The major weakness in Hartshorne's position is the claim that empirical evidence is irrelevant to the question of God's existence. Conceptual and empirical issues often overlap. This is not, however, inconsistent with Hartshorne's belief that God's existence is not an empirical question. Empirical considerations may cause a revision in the concept of deity but can never prove the existence or nonexistence of God. Thus, the blurring of conceptual and empirical questions is not fatal to the global argument. The existence of the dipolar God can still be affirmed as more reasonable than any currently available alternatives, be they theistic or nontheistic.The global argument is a genuine example of a cumulative case since none of the proofs it involves, taken individually, is capable of establishing the existence of God. However, when considered as elements of one cumulative argument, the case for theism is substantially strenthened.The emphasis in current literature on Hartshorne's version of the ontological argument obscures the fact that Hartshorne's case for theism rests on a group of interrelated arguments. Hartshorne explicitly denies that the ontological argument, by itself, is sufficient to justify belief in God. The dissertation examines Hartshorne's "global argument" for God's existence.Hartshorne's cumulative case, the global argument, has always been an integral part of his philosophy. The global argument is novel in its approach to the theistic question because, (1) it employs the concept of a dipolar God and, (2) all of the proofs are a priori

Review of Professors at Play

Review of Professors at Play by Robert Wexelblatt. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1991

Review of The Philosophy of Charles Hartshorne

Review of The Philosophy of Charles Hartshorne , Lewis Hahn, ed. Library of Living Philosophers, volume XX (La Salle: Illinois: Open Court, 1991

Review of The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism

Review of The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism by Kathleen C. Boone. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989

Review of Wisdom as Moderation: A Philosophy of the Middle Way

Review of Wisdom as Moderation: A Philosophy of the Middle Way by Charles Hartshorne. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987

Review of The Darkness and the Light: A Philosopher Reflects Upon His Fortunate Career and Those Who Made It Possible

Review of The Darkness and the Light: A Philosopher Reflects Upon His Fortunate Career and Those Who Made It Possible by Charles Hartshorne. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990

A Philosopher Looks at the Bible

If there is a single argument of my booklet that is original it is the refutation of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which is stated on page 12 and formalized in footnote 3, page 41. This is not the typical argument against inerrancy, for my claim is that the doctrine of inerrancy itself, in conjunction with a well-known fact about the Bible, commits the inerrantist to an inconsistent triad of positions. Instead of insisting that the Bible itself is inconsistent, this argument establishes that the doctrine of inerrancy is complicit in establishing its own falsity. The most reasonable way I see for the inerrantist to escape the argument is to accept that translations can be inerrant. That move, however, raises the question of why anyone should suppose that the autographs are privileged in the first place. My wider claim is that no writing in which people are involved can be strictly inerrant, whether or not God inspired the text. The failure of inerrancy allows one to raise anew the question of what divine inspiration means. This, in turn, is an invitation to entertain alternate--and in my view, superior--concepts of God. The philosophical and theological issues run deep and I have dealt with some of them in other things that I have written

Review of Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes

Review of Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes by Charles Hartshorne. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984

Logos-Sophia

Logos-Sophia, Volume 17, Spring 2024. The Journal of the Pittsburg State University Philosophical Society has largely been a student publication with occasional faculty contributionhttps://digitalcommons.pittstate.edu/logos_sophia/1016/thumbnail.jp