%0 Journal Article
%T Borden Parker Bowne's Approach To The Problem Of The Personality Of God
%A Mustafa ATE£¿
%J -
%D 2019
%X When the ideas of the contemporary theist thinkers observed who deal with the problem that if God can be accepted as a person or not, it is possible for us to say that there are three main viewpoints as the view that it cannot be known if God is a person or not, the apprehension that God is not a person and therefore personality should not be ascribed to God and the idea that it is necessary to attribute personality to God. Because Borden Parker Bowne (1847-1910) who was the founder of the philosophy school of Boston Personalism thinks that the beings who have the attributes of self-knowing and self-control, namely God and man are personal, and the beings which don¡¯t have at least one of these attributes are not personal; He is among the philosophers who consider to ascribe to God personality necessary. According to Bowne, God¡¯s being personal means that He knows, determines and directs Himself and His activities. According to Bowne¡¯s comprehension, the objections which are asserted against God¡¯s personality arise from the delusion that the limitations which are peculiar to human personality restricts also the absolute personality of God. The supposition that human personality and God¡¯s personality are the same, underlies this delusion. But personality must be regarded as two separate categories one of which is perfect that is complete personality and the other of which is finite that is incomplete personality. According to this disjunction, perfect personality is peculiar to only God who is an Infinite being. The absolute knowledge and self-possession which are necessary to perfect personality can be found only in the absolute and infinite being upon whom all things depend. But finite personality is peculiar to mankind. The finiteness and incompleteness of the human personality arise from the dependence of human upon God to come into being and to exist. This finite personality of man is the feeblest and faintest image of God¡¯s personality. But in our opinion, because we don¡¯t have any sensorial perception and empirical knowledge about God, it cannot be alleged that to assert the claim that God¡¯s personality is the infinite and perfect form of human personality and human personality is the incomplete and finite form of God¡¯s personality is necessary. For this reason, the thesis that ¡°human personality is entirely different from Divine personality with regard to its nature and there is no structural similarity between them¡± can be defended reasonably and equally at least as the thesis that ¡°human personality is the feeblest and faintest image of God¡¯s
%K Bowne
%K Tanr£¿
%K ki£¿ilik
%U http://dergipark.org.tr/cuilah/issue/46367/555342