Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:13:45.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anthropomorphic Concepts of God*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Edward L. Schoen
Edward L. Schoen
Affiliation:
Western Kentucky University, U.S.A.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Three of the most venerable objections to anthropomorphic conceptions of the divine are traceable to Xenophanes and his critique of the early Greek gods. Though suitably revised, these ancient criticisms have persisted over the centuries, plaguing various religious communities, particularly those of classical Christian commitment. Xenophanes complained that anthropomorphism leads to unseemly characterizations, noting that both over the ages, the list of unseemly characteristics has expanded somewhat.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1990, pp. 123 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Freeman, Kathleen, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), p. 22.Google Scholar

2 See Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae, vol. 1, part 1, ed. by Thomas, Gilby O. P., (Garden City: Image Books, 1969), particularly Questions 3–11.Google Scholar

3 Hume, David, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Posthumous Essays, ed. by Popkin, Richard H. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1980), p. 37.Google Scholar Emphasis in original.

4 Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, p. 23.Google Scholar

5 Summa Theologiae, vol. 1, part 1, p. 207.Google Scholar See Question 13, Articles 1–7 for the details of his argument on this point.

6 B Summa Theologiae, p. 203.Google Scholar

7 Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, p. 22.Google Scholar

8 Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, p. 22.Google Scholar

9 Piaget, Jean, The Child's Conception of the World (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1929), p. 268.Google Scholar

10 The Child's Conception of the World, p. 381.Google Scholar For the child's resistance to switching attributions, see pp. 353 and 379–381. For the natural tendency toward animism, see part II, especially chapter VII.

11 See Freud, Sigmund, The Future of an Illusion, Strachey, James, editor (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1964)Google Scholar, ch. III, for Freud's position. Gordon Allport develops his views in Allport, Gordon W., The Individual and His Religion: A Psychological Interpretation (New York: Macmillan, 1960). See especially pp. 33 ff. and 121–5.Google Scholar

12 The Individual and His Religion, p. 124.Google Scholar

13 The Future of an Illusion, p. 49.Google Scholar

14 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and the Posthumous Essays, p. 37.Google Scholar

15 See Soskice, Janet Martin, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)Google Scholar, particularly ch. v, for a detailed discussion of this general sort of position.

16 See Harré, Ramano, The Principles of Scientific Thinking (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), especially ch. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 See Ihde, Don, Existential Technics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983)Google Scholar, ch. 5. For a discussion of some of the initial psychological investigations exploring the extent to which human beings are capable of mental manipulations, see Shepard, Roger N. and Cooper, Lynn A., Mental Images and Their Transformations (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982).Google Scholar

18 Recently, Frederick Ferré has addressed a number of other philosophical objections in his ‘In Praise of Anthropomorphism’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion XVI (1984), 203–212.Google Scholar Specically religious problems are discussed in Legenhausen, Gary, ‘Is God a Person?’, in Religious Studies, XXII (1986), 307–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar