There have been Christian thinkers throughout history that have been realists, anti-realists, and somewhere in between. Because it cannot expect any heavenly reward, it lives the good life, the life of love, for its own sake, and not for the sake of any postmortem payoff. -external, Anti-realist movement-studied with Nemirovich-Danchenko (at the Moscow Arts Theatre)-original member of the Moscow Arts Theatre-in 1902, left Stanislavski's company to become a director-directed at an experimental studio at the Moscow Arts Theatre for less than a year-believed that the director was the primary theatre artist When you say that "God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe, life-tuning, and the existence of objective moral values," can an atheist take it in an anti-realist way? Non-realism of this kind has long been common among Lutherans. They’re just useful fictions that help us to get along in the world. Hick, however, misunderstood Malcolm, mainly due to their misunderstanding of anti-realism. His attitude toward such entities is at best agnostic, if not outright denial. Moral relativism, a subcategory, says it would be true for a culture which holds the view. The topic is fascinating to me, knowing that scientists can work together despite their differing stance on the debate. Moreover, such reality or being confers value or meaning on language and practices themselves. In philosophy, realism begins with Plato, in whose day theory and abstract conceptual thought had only recently been invented. Can we get used to that idea? Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events. Our God is 'the God of our Fathers', the God of a whole great tradition. Recently I read some books on the philosophy of science, especially the debate between scientific realism and anti-realism. Non-realism is much more spiritually advanced, because like Buddhism it teaches and demands thoroughgoing selflessness. This led to the novel idea that we are the creators. The paper describes motivations for anti‐realism in religion such as the recognition of conflicting religious claims and a desire for tolerance. God Himself, a concrete object if ever there was one! I personally lean heavily towards moral realism and so my ethical theories fall under cognitivism. During the 'Church' period of Christian history (c.AD48-AD1789), human beings were thought not yet ready to live the 'solar' ethic in the Sermon on the Mount. The old objective realist God-out-there was above all a lawgiver, but the Bible already contains sharp criticisms of the moral efficacy of any externally-imposed law. – Something which was caused by God (Aquinas was a monk and so believed in the Judaeo-Christian God) and not something which humans could explain with better understanding – Aquinas took a realist approach to miracles. There is no readymade Truth-out-there: human interpretation goes all the way down. Today, liberal democracy, the welfare state, the healing professions and our 'humanitarian' moral concern have created a world in which it is easy to see that we can and must live by the ethics of Jesus. Or, at the very least, what one considers to be a candidate of truth in the world. The Oxford English Dictionary defines antitheist as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god". Realism is often associated with a 'picture' theory of meaning, and a correspondence theory of truth.  Another way in which Byrne thinks one might be a theistic anti-realist is owing to the attractions of what he calls contrastive anti-realism. Thus, Platonism is avoided, the objectivity of moral goodness and duties secured, and the Euthyphro Dilemma adroitly circumvented. My question, however, concerns the implications of your nominalist view, which I think leaves you in an uncomfortable position regarding your ontology of beauty and possibly your moral ontology. Cupitt thinks we must, as soon as possible. The responses to this question took two broad forms. Philosophers felt they were moving in a world of timeless Forms, contemplating which was a new elite way to knowledge. In the case of religion, one form of non-realism says that God is real for those who believe in him, that God is always 'my God', and that God is internal to religion. The relative god is 'my god', that which is of supreme importance in my life, my 'ultimate concern', my guiding light. On this view, moral anti-realism is the denial of the thesis that moral properties—or facts, objects, relations, events, etc. The anti-realist is unimpressed by this realist "explanation" of the success of science simply because -given an anti-realist understanding of scientific theories- scientific theories really do not "explain" anything at all; they are just successful predictors, i.e. God is not a being or substance and is neither wholly simple and timeless nor everlasting. For example, do you no longer give the realist resolution to the Euthyphro Dilemma, no longer ground the Good in God… I put forth in the comments section the idea that what one believes to be the case with regards to realism v. anti-realism is going to color what one takes to be true in the world. Plato himself taught that there was a whole really-existing world of Ideas or Forms. Religious realism vs Anti-realism Religious realism refers to the view that religious practices and languages are a reference to a divine reality existing independently of them. Cognitivism says that moral statements (such as "You shouldn't kill someone just for your enjoyment") can be true or false. Adopting a non-factualist or error-theoretic interpretation of some domain of discourse commits one to anti-realism about its entities. Can we discern the ultimate reach of human knowledge? We hear of a glutton 'whose god is his belly', of Iris Murdoch that 'Plato was her god', and of an Australian cricket fan that his god was the great spin bowler Shane Warne. Byrne presents a general argument for interpreting the intent of talk about God in a realist fashion and argues that judging the intent of theistic discourse should be the primary object of concern in the philosophy of religion. Looking into history, there are many theories that sound absurd to modern scientists, such as the idea that heat is an invisible liquid called phlogiston. In this bleak modern vision of the human condition, can we say with Nietzsche, a great Yes to life? 1. This is the Following Kant, Cupitt speaks of God as a guiding Ideal, an imaginary focus of religious aspiration. As the phrase goes, 'It's all yours'. If He doesn’t exist, then how is that the best explanation of the origin and fine-tuning of the universe? For the person who takes an anti-realist perspective toward certain theoretical entities in physics doesn’t believe that such entities really exist. Anti-realist ideas, by contrast, consider everything as human constructs, plastic and malleable, which can be bended and altered but which inherently are unknowable. Can science access external, independent, ultimate reality? Thus, for the non-realist, to believe in the Creator is to resolve to treat life as a pure gift; to believe in the Resurrection of Christ is to start living 'a risen life', and to believe in the Ascension is to say 'Jesus is Lord' and live by his teaching. Your Facebook announcement reads, "I now find anti-realism to be a more plausible position." Instead, God is an idea, a concept within the language shared by certain religious believers. Error theory says it expresses a view that attemptsto be true, but fails, as there are no moral facts to support it. We already take a non-realistic view of other people's gods. There is a realism to the Psalms that will not be clouded by the sometimes excessively syrupy way that modern worship treats the psalms.