Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T06:45:25.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inclusion and Incarnation: a reply to Sturch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2003

TIM BAYNE
TIM BAYNE
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 107 - 109
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press