Richard Brian Davis (davis-rb)

Contributions to Philosophie.ch

Bibliography

Davis, Richard Brian. 1996. “Time, Infinity, and the Creation of the Universe: A Study in Al-Kindi’s First Philosophy.” Auslegung. A Journal of Philosophy 21(1): 1–18.
Davis, Richard Brian. 2003. “ ‘Partially Clad’ Bare Particulars Exposed.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81: 534–548.
Davis, Richard Brian. 2004. “The Brave New Particularism.” The Modern Schoolman 81(4): 267–273.
Davis, Richard Brian. 2008. “God and Modal Concretism.” Philosophia Christi 10(1): 57–74, doi:10.5840/pc20081014.
Davis, Richard Brian. 2013a. “How to Individuate Universals – Or Not.” Axiomathes 23(3): 551–566.
Davis, Richard Brian. 2013b. “Are Bare Particulars Constituents?” Acta Analytica 28(4): 395–410.
Davis, Richard Brian, ed. 2019. Disney and Philosophy. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Davis, Richard Brian and Brown, David. 2008. “A Puzzle for Particulars?” Axiomathes 18(1): 49–65.
Davis, Richard Brian and Franks, Paul W. 2018. “Plantinga’s Defence and His Theodicy Are Incompatible.” in Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism, edited by Klaas J. Kraay, pp. 203–224. London: Routledge, doi:10.4324/9781315210995.
Gould, Paul M. and Davis, Richard Brian. 2014a. “Response to Yandell (2014a).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 36–37. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gould, Paul M. and Davis, Richard Brian. 2014b. “Modified Theistic Activism.” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 51–54. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gould, Paul M. and Davis, Richard Brian. 2014c. “Response to Critics [Yandell (2014b), Welty (2014a), Craig (2014a), Shalkowski (2014a), Oppy (2014a)].” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 75–80. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gould, Paul M. and Davis, Richard Brian. 2014d. “Response to Welty (2014b).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 99. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gould, Paul M. and Davis, Richard Brian. 2014e. “Response to Craig (2014b).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 128–129. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gould, Paul M. and Davis, Richard Brian. 2014f. “Response to Shalkowski (2014b).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 156–157. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gould, Paul M. and Davis, Richard Brian. 2014g. “Response to Oppy (2014b).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 184–185. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Further References

Craig, William Lane. 2014a. “Response to Gould and Davis (2014a).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 68–69. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Craig, William Lane. 2014b. “Anti-Platonism.” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 113–126. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Oppy, Graham. 2014a. “Response to Gould and Davis (2014a).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 72–74. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Oppy, Graham. 2014b. “Abstract Objects? Who Cares!” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 169–181. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Shalkowski, Scott A. 2014a. “Response to Gould and Davis (2014a).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 70–71. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Shalkowski, Scott A. 2014b. “God with or without Abstract Objects.” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 143–154. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Welty, Greg. 2014a. “Response to Gould and Davis (2014a).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 66–67. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Welty, Greg. 2014b. “Theistic Conceptual Realism.” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 81–96. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Yandell, Keith E. 2014a. “God and Propositions.” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 21–35. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Yandell, Keith E. 2014b. “Response to Gould and Davis (2014a).” in Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects, edited by Paul M. Gould, pp. 65. Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion. London: Bloomsbury Academic.