Theology : Systematic Theology / Dogmatics: God - Theism

Authors Bio, not available

The classical defence of, and arguments for, belief in God have not proved completely satisfactory, particularly in the perspective of modern times, and in the Gifford Lectures for 1983-4, given at the University of St Andrews, Professor Macquarrie puts forward an alternative. He calls his approach 'dialectical theism': dialectical, to indicate that he seeks to avoid the onesidedness of classical theism, and theism (as opposed to pantheism or panentheism) to show that he is still concerned to arrive at a satisfying conception of God.After indicating some of the weaknesses of classical theism, and outlining other approaches which have been put forward,Dr Macquarrie discusses a long series of thinkers who, he argues, represent an alternative tradition: Plotinus, Dionysius theAreopagite, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, Hegel, Whitehead and Heidegger. In the last section of his book, against this background he develops his dialectical concept of God, re-examines the proofs for the existence of God and shows how dialectical theism has a bearing on spirituality, ethics, theology and world religions.

This short 1988 book offers an alternative reading of the impact of modernity on Christian faith to that advanced by Don Cupitt in the TV series and book The Sea of Faith. It is a spirited defence of belief in the objective reality of God and in life after death, as opposed to Cupitt's radically interiorised and expressivist conception of religion. As attractive as many may find a denial of the traditional doctrines of the Church in favour of an anti-metaphysical, non-dogmatic expressivist version of Christian faith, Hebblethwaite insists that of greater importance is the question of truth at stake here, and it is on the question of truth that he focusses his attention. After arguing against Cupitt's response to the modern situation, the author tries to show how belief in an objective God is not only possible despite the impact of modern science and historical criticism, but indeed highly plausible.