The doctrine of the spiritual senses has played a significant role in the history of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox spirituality. What has been largely unremarked is that the doctrine also played a significant role in classical Protestant thought, and that analogous concepts can be found in Indian theism. In spite of the doctrine’s significance, however, the only analytic philosopher to consider it has been Nelson Pike. I will argue that his treatment is inadequate, show how the development of the (...) doctrine in Puritan thought and spirituality fills a serious lacuna in Pike’s treatment, and conclude with some suggestions as to where the discussion should go next. (shrink)

Part I argues that ontological arguments, like other classical proofs of the existence of God, are parts of larger arguments in which they are embedded. These larger arguments include reasons supporting the proofs’ premises and responses to them, and to the proofs’ claims to validity and non-circularity, since, in the final analysis, our assessment of the proofs will express our best judgment of the cumulative force of all the considerations bearing on their overall adequacy. Part II illustrates these points by (...) examining contemporary defences of, and attacks on, one of the ontological argument’s central premises, namely, that God’s existence is logically possible. (shrink)

Recent students of mysticism have sharply distinguished monistic from theistic mysticism. The former is more or less identified with the empty consciousness experience and the latter with the love mysticism of such figures as Bernard of Clairvaux. I argue that a sharp distinction between the two is unwarranted. Western medieval mystics, for example, combined the apophatic theology of Dionysius the Areopagite with the erotic imagery of the mystical marriage. Their experiences were clearly theistic but integrally incorporated ”monistic moments’. I conclude (...) by discussing Nelson Pike’s claim that these monistic moments were themselves phenomenologically theistic. (shrink)

Editor’s NoteThe Memorial of Prof. William J. WainwrightThe member of Editorial Board of Journal of Philosophical Theological ResearchWilliam “Bill” Judson Wainwright (1935-2020), a distinguished professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was the member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Philosophical Theological Research (JPTR).Wainwright is the author of several books in various fields of philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion, and numerous articles and chapters. Monotheism and Hope In God (2020), Reason, Revelation, and Devotion: (...) Inference and Argument in Religion (2015), Religion and Morality (2005), and Heart and Reason (1995) are among his published books.His last published article is “God, Love and Inter-religious Dialogue”1, which was published by the Journal of Philosophical Theological Research in the autumn of 2020. Wainwright gave final approval to his paper but unfortunately could not see its publication. He passed away on November 5, 2020, a few days before we published his article. May he be in peace and God’s grace. I never met him but I understood from my contacts with him that “He was a very kind, respected, noble, and patient philosopher.”We decided to dedicate a special issue titled “Theology, Philosophy, and Ethics”: In Memory of William J. Wainwright to him. I would like to express my gratitude to all the philosophers who accepted my invitation and generously and kindly helped us in publishing this special issue by writing their valuable articles. We hope that Wainwright would be pleased with the publication of this issue.I will end my words with this wish, which was Wainwright’s wish too, that: I wish that the followers of monotheistic religions can establish peace and tranquility in the world through inter-religious dialogue, mutual understanding, and extending their love for God to each other.1. Wainwright, W.J. (2020), God, Love, and Interreligious Dialogue, Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 22(85), 5-13. (shrink)

Many believe that objective morality requires a theistic foundation. I maintain that there are sui generis objective ethical facts that do not reduce to natural or supernatural facts. On my view, objective morality does not require an external foundation of any kind. After explaining my view, I defend it against a variety of objections posed by William Wainwright, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland.

Introduction: Over the past twenty-five years the sporting body has been studied in a myriad of ways including via a range of feminist frameworks (Hall 1996; Lowe 1998; Markula 2003; George 2005; Hargreaves 2007) and gender-sensitive lenses (e.g. McKay 1994; Aoki 1996; Woodward 2008). Despite this developing corpus, studies of sport only rarely engage in depth with the ‘flesh’ of the lived sporting and exercizing body (Wainwright and Turner 2003; Allen-Collinson 2009) at least from a phenomenological angle, and in (...) relation to female embodiment. It seems that a more corporeally-grounded, phenomenological perspective on women’s sporting embodiment would be a welcome addition to extant studies. In this chapter I suggest that employing a feminist phenomenological framework can provide a powerful lens through which to explore the subjective, richly-textured, lived-body experiences of sport and exercise. Phenomenology of course offers only one of a multiplicity of avenues to investigate the body in sport, and this chapter provides just a small glimpse of its possibilities. To-date studies of sporting experience employing a phenomenological theoretical framework remain surprisingly under-developed (Kerry and Armour 2000), as do those using its ethnomethodological offspring (Coates 1999; Burke et al. 2008). Further, as Fisher (2000) notes, the significance of the interaction between phenomenology and feminism has only relatively recently begun to be explored. It seems timely, therefore, to address this intriguing, potentially productive, but sometimes uneasy nexus, focusing upon female running embodiment in this case. (shrink)

In Climate Leviathan, Mann and Wainwright address the political implications of climate change by theorizing four possible planetary futures: Climate Leviathan as capitalist planetary sovereignty, Climate Mao as non-capitalist planetary sovereignty, Climate Behemoth as capitalist non-planetary sovereignty, and Climate X as non-capitalist non-planetary sovereignty. The authors of the present article agree that the depth and scale of destabilizations induced by climate change cannot be navigated justly from within the present social-political-economic system. We disagree, however, on which of the non-capitalist (...) orientations is better suited for generating viable alternatives to the worst dystopian futures. The article thus stages a debate to elucidate the theoretical and political divergence between Climate X and Climate Mao. (shrink)