Marek Dobrzeniecki

John L. Schellenberg, autor argumentu z ukrytości, twierdzi, że gdyby Bóg istniał, to nie istnieliby rzetelnie niewierzący. W swej najnowszej książce Jacek Wojtysiak stwierdza, że teista może odwrócić to rozumowanie i stwierdzić, że gdyby Bóg nie istniał, to nie istnieliby rzetelnie wierzący. Dochodzi on nie tylko do wniosku, że wierzący istnieją, lecz jeszcze, że można przypuszczać, iż jest ich znacznie więcej niż niewierzących. Może zatem stwierdzić istnienie wielkiego faktu wiary, wobec którego ateista jest podwójnie bezradny: po pierwsze, nie umie go wyjaśnić, a po drugie – nie jest w stanie przedstawić paralelnego argumentu za ateizmem. W swoim artykule analizuję tę część książki J. Wojtysiaka, która jest poświęcona tym zagadnieniom i dochodzę do wniosku, że ateista jednak znajduje się lepszym położeniu, niż sugeruje to polski filozof.

Artykuł jest odpowiedzią na polemikę Stanisława Ruczaja z argumentem z Wcielenia, który został zaprezentowany w książce Ukrytość i Wcielenie. Teistyczna odpowiedź na argument Johna L. Schellenberga za nieistnieniem Boga. Ruczaj zarzuca tzw. obronie inkarnacyjnej, że nie rozważa ona możliwości, zgodnie z którą Bóg jest zarazem wcielony, jak i nieukryty. W niniejszym artykule koncentruję się na uzasadnieniu, dlaczego uważam, że jest możliwe, iż owa opcja jest dla Boga wykluczona. Według mnie istnieją racje przemawiające za tym, że jest ona (a) logicznie sprzeczna, (b) niespójna z doskonałym moralnie charakterem Boga, (c) nie skutkowałaby wyeliminowaniem niewiary bez oporu we Wcielenie.

Artykuł jest odpowiedzią na krytyczne uwagi zgłaszane pod adresem książki Ukrytość i Wcielenie. Teistyczna odpowiedź na argument Johna L. Schellenberga za nieistnieniem Boga przez Stanisława Judyckiego, Ryszarda Mordarskiego, Marka Peplińskiego i Jana Sochonia. Główny zarzut wobec mojego stanowiska głosi, że jest ono zbyt przychylne wobec argumentu J.L. Schellenberga, który niekoniecznie powinien być wzorem ujęcia problematyki ukrytości. Jednym z przejawów przyjęcia założeń kanadyjskiego autora jest zgoda na tezę o istnieniu niewierzących przy braku oporu.

W artykule autor analizuje teorię autorytetu przedstawioną przez Trinkaus Zagzebski. Teoria ta podkreśla rolę zaufania w uzasadnianiu zdań, m.in. wskazując na ograniczenia stanowiska egoizmu poznawczego, dla którego ideałem jest sytuacja, w której podmiot, uzasadniając swe przekonania, polega tylko na własnych zdolnościach poznawczych. Trinkaus Zagzebski broni uniwersalizmu poznawczego, wg którego już sam fakt, że osoba x, głosi że p, jest prima facie racją za p. W tekście autor wskazuje na słabe punkty uniwersalizmu i konkluduje, że albo uznamy to stanowisko z jego konsekwentnym odrzuceniem tezy o równości podmiotów poznających, albo też mimo wszystko opowiemy się za egoizmem poznawczym. Autor uznaje przy tym, że amerykańska filozofka daje nam wskazówki, jak ulepszyć owo stanowisko, by nie prowadziło ono do twierdzeń sprzecznych z intuicją.

The article discusses a response to Schellenberg’s atheistic ‘hiddenness argument’ that neither objects to its premises nor formulates a new inductive argument in favour of the existence of God. According to the proposed response, it is sufficient for the task of defending theism to reverse Schellenberg’s reasoning and present a theistic meta-argument that takes as its assumption the fact that there are resistant believers in the world. The paper defends the claim that both arguments have similar persuasive power. However, because of their contradictory conclusions both cannot be sound. It is argued that the way to decide the dilemma is to compare the demographics of theism and atheism and to compare accommodation strategies of both arguments. The first comparison favours theism, but it does not exclude the possibility that quantitative proportions between theists and atheists can change in the future. The second comparison refers to accommodation strategies of proponents of A-argument who have to give an account of how it is possible that in an atheistic world there exist resistant believers and of proponents of T-argument who have to give an account of how it is possible that in the world governed by an all-powerful and all-loving God there exist nonresistant nonbelievers. The conclusion of the considerations is the claim that the theistic accommodation strategy compares favourably to the atheistic one.

The paper explores Pascal’s idea according to which the teachings of the Church assume the hiddenness of God, and, hence, there is nothing surprising in the fact of the occurrence of nonresistant nonbelief. In order to show it the paper invokes the doctrines of the Incarnation, the Church as the Body of Christ, and the Original Sin. The first one indicates that there could be greater than nonbelief obstacle in forming interpersonal bonds with God, namely the ontological chasm between him and human persons. The assumption of the human nature by the Son of God could be seen as a cure for this problem. The doctrine of the Church shows it as an end in itself, and in order for the Church to have meaning and to exist there has to be nonbelief in the world. Finally, the dogma of the Original Sin shows that there is no category of purely nonresistant nonbelief. The paper also addresses Schellenberg’s “accommodationist strategy” from the perspective of the Christian theology and in the last part it investigates what should be the influence of the fact of the hiddenness on theology’s take on the divine revelation.

The author offers a new look at one of the most influential books in the history of philosophy: Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus". He presents the Tractatus as expressing the intellectual anxietes of its modernist epoch. The most intruiging but usually unanswered question concerning the Tractatus is why Wittgenstein had to think that only propositions of natural science have meaning. The author reviews the most popular interpretations of the Tractatus and comes to the conclusion that the early Wittgenstein was an ethical subjectivist. With this insight, he solves the tension between Tractarian theses that influenced neopositivism and its mystical part.

The paper presents the latest achievements of analytic philosophers of religion in Christology. My goal is to defend the literal/metaphysical reading of the Chalcedonian dogma of the hypostatic union. Some of the contemporary Christian thinkers claim that the doctrine of Jesus Christ as both perfectly divine and perfectly human is self-contradictory (I present this point of view on the example of John Hick) and, therefore, it should be understood metaphorically. In order to defend the consistency of the conciliar theology, I refer to the work of, among others, Eleonore Stump, William Hasker, Peter Geach and Kevin Sharpe. As a result, I conclude that recent findings in analytic metaphysics provide an ontological scaffolding that explains away the objection of the incompatibility of the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In order to confirm this conclusion such metaphysical topics as properties attribution (what it means for an object to have a property), relation of identity (what it means for an object x to be identical with object y), and essentialism and kind membership (what it means for an object to belong necessarily to a kind) are scrutinized in detail.

Early analytic philosophy is known for its logical rigor that seems to leave no place for non-rational sources of knowledge such as mystical experiences. The following paper shows on the example of Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgen-stein that despite of this early analytic philosophy was interested in mysticism and it also shows the roots of this interest. For Russell an application of logical methods to solving philosophical puzzled was an expression of more fundamental striving – to know the world as it is, sub specie aeternitatis – which is mystical in nature. In turn early Wittgenstein’s philosophy sets the limits of meaningful propositions and provides the distinction between what can be said and what can only be shown and what manifests itself in the world. The latter belongs to the realm of the mystical.

The paper considers premises of the hiddenness argument with an emphasis on its usage of the concept of a personal God. The paper’s assumption is that a recent literature on second-person experiences could be useful for theists in their efforts to defend their position against Schellenberg’s argument. Stump’s analyses of a second-person knowledge indicate that what is required in order to establish an interpersonal relationship is a personal presence of the persons in question, and therefore they falsify the thesis that a minimalist requirement for a relationship between a man and God has to be belief in his existence. Recent works by developmental psychologists not only verify a hypothesis that a second-person knowledge is not reducible to knowledge-that, but also suggest that one needs a shared form of life in order to establish an interpersonal relationship. These two insights allow the author to formulate his own response to the hiddenness argument: only when God’s presence is non-explicit—for example, when God is hidden in a human nature—can a finite person enter into a personal relationship with him. It is the fulfilment of the requirement of being personally present that is the justifying reason for God to permit non-resistant non-belief.

One of the counterarguments to the hiddenness argument that gains the popularity in the recent years refers to the inconceivability of God. If God is transcendent, state the proponents of the argument, then we do not know if the divine love is expressed in the openness to personal relationships with finite beings, as the first premise of the hiddenness argument claims. They accuse J. L. Schellenberg of shaping the concept of God on the model of modern concepts of person. In response I am indicating at the fact that even though there is a danger of anthropomorphism in Schellenberg’s writings, personalistic theism is bound to accept the first premise of the hiddenness argument. I justify my thesis by referring to the scholastic principle that allows to attribute to God all perfections and by arguing in favour of the thesis that personhood is one of the perfections.

More than a few contemporary analytical philosophers of religion have tried to answer the atheistic argument from hiddenness presented in 1993 by John L. Schellenberg. In the paper the author focuses on the objections raised by Søren Kierkegaard with respect to the concept of faith that is displayed in Schellenberg’s philosophy of religion. The insight from the author living 150 years before the current debate allows us to notice the premises of the hiddenness argument that are commonly overlooked. One can, i.e. suppose that Kierkegaard would cast doubt on Schellenberg’s claim that the best evidence allowing the development of a mutual relationship between God and the human being is an experience of an accepting presence of God in human consciousness. Kierkegaard argues in his works that only the hiddenness of God guarantees a free and a selfless relationship between men and God. He shows this in a colourful language of metaphors in which he compares faith to conjugal love; a human life to an exam and a relationship between God and the human being to a relationship between a king and a female servant. This way of reasoning reveals the importance of the role of the images of God in the reflections of philosophers tackling the hiddenness argument.

According to The Consensus Gentium Argument from the premise: “Everyone believes that God exists” one can conclude that God does exist. In my paper I analyze two ways of defending the claim that somebody’s belief in God is a prima facie reason to believe. Kelly takes the fact of the commonness of the belief in God as a datum to explain and argues that the best explanation has to indicate the truthfulness of the theistic belief. Trinkaus Zagzebski grounds her defence on rationality of epistemic trust in others. In the paper I argue that the second line of reasoning is more promising and I propose its improved version.