Book Review: Natural Signs and Knowledge of God

Natural Signs and Knowledge of God is a little book by C. Stephen Evans that deserves more attention than it has received. A contribution to contemporary debates in religious epistemology, this volume begins by considering a certain historical puzzle surrounding the traditional theistic proofs of natural theology: On the one hand, they have continued to capture the imagination of thinkers throughout the ages, having some intuitive pull even for their most insightful critics. On the other hand, they have failed to be widely convincing even for many of those who consider them carefully and honestly. Taking this curiosity as a launching point for his own model, Evans sets off in a new direction—a sort of via media between reformed epistemology and evidentialism—by introducing the concept of a “natural sign” to religious epistemology.

Before presenting his model, Evans lays out some desiderata for a plausible epistemology of religious belief. “When a hypothesis is posed,” he explains, “one must begin by thinking about what one would expect to find if that hypothesis were true.”[1] What might we expect with regard to knowledge of God if in fact God exists? Though I lack the space to reproduce his case here, Evans argues that two principles would likely hold: the Wide Accessibility Principle, according to which knowledge of God is widely accessible to people around the world and throughout time, and the Easy Resistibility Principle, which states that knowledge of God, whether widely accessible or not, is easily resistible. Those who wish not to believe are not coerced. But besides meeting these conditions, we noted above that Evans also wants his epistemology to shed light on what he calls the problem of natural theology: that the arguments of natural theology have persistently held wide appeal, yet nevertheless fail to convince many careful thinkers. This is where natural signs enter the picture.

Book Review: God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga

In God, Freedom, and Evil Alvin Plantinga (AP) attempts to rebut the logical problem of evil [i], which posits that the following two propositions [i] are inconsistent:

(1) God (an omnipotent and perfectly good being) exists
(2) Evil exists

Where is the Inconsistency? 
AP spends the first section of the book attempting to demonstrate an inconsistency between the two premises. He argues that (1) and (2) are neither explicitly nor formally [ii] contradictory, and (following J. L. Mackie) decides that the most promising course for the atheologian [iii] is that the propositions are implicitly contradictory. A set of premises is implicitly contradictory if one or more of the terms violates a logically necessary truth. What the atheologian is looking for, then, in pressing the logical problem of evil is a necessary truth which, when added to (1) and (2) above, yields a contradiction.

Book Review: The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul

The Soul Hypothesis is a collection of 9 essays from authors of diverse backgrounds (i.e., philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics, brain science, linguistics). While this sort of eclecticism often leads to very uneven work, this is most definitely not true in this case. The editors and authors do an excellent job of maintaining continuity among the essays, primarily by providing ‘bridging’ commentaries between the chapters which allow for the reader to see the emerging themes. In attempting to replicate this thematic consistency, I’ve been forced to discuss the book’s contents in an ‘out of order’ fashion.[i]

Themes. It will be helpful to first sketch the two main themes of the book. The first theme is that there is no one soul hypothesis (henceforth SH).[ii] This means that falsifying one version of the SH does not entail that no version of the SH is true. [iii] This also means that the extent to which “the” SH is judged plausible will vary according to which specific SH is being proffered. Likewise, there is no single version of the materialist hypothesis (MH) [iv]. Arguably, as with the SH, this means that falsifying a version of the MH does not entail that no version of the MH is true, nor that all versions of the MH will be judged equally (im)plausible. Despite this caveat, I will for simplicity of exposition use ‘the’ SH or ‘the’ MH language, and relegate finer-grained discussion to the last footnote of this review. However, at various points in the text the authors argue against the ‘softer’ forms of materialism as well.[v]

Book Review: Epistemic Justification by Richard Swinburne

In Epistemic Justification (henceforth EJ) Richard Swinburne wants to answer two basic questions: first, what is justification, and second, what types of justification are worth having. While easy to state, the questions are very difficult to answer. This difficulty stems from several factors, including the history of epistemology, the failure to make distinctions, and the connections between justification, warrant, and knowledge.

The History of Epistemology

The basic point here is that justification (and ‘warrant’) have not been subjected to as much philosophical analysis as has ‘knowledge’. Thus what is often seen is that various models will agree on when knowledge is (not) obtained, but disagree on when justification and warrant are (not) attained.

William Abraham on Christianity and Worldview

"Religious belief should be assessed as a rounded whole rather than taken in stark isolation. Christianity, for example, like other world faiths, is a complex, large-scale system of belief which must be seen as a whole before it is assessed. To break it up into disconnected parts is to mutilate and distort its true character. We can, of course, distinguish certain elements pin the Christian faith, but we must still stand back and see it as a metaphysical system, as a world view, that is total in its scope and range."

—William Abraham

"Soft Rationalism," in Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 2nd ed., ed. Michael Peterson et al., p. 99.

Book Review: Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy by Richard Swinburne

In Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, Richard Swinburne makes the case for the veracity of the Christian revelation. He does this by proposing four criteria that any purported revelation must pass, and then mounts a case for the Christian revelation successfully meeting those criteria—and doing so better than rival theistic revelations.

Assumptions and a priori probabilities. As with all of his books, Swinburne presupposes conclusions arrived at in earlier works. Here he is not concerned so much with merely assessing the Christian religion in a worldview vacuum, but rather assumes that there is at least some significant prior probability that the God of classical theism exists.[i] Given that God exists and that he is perfectly good, it is likely that he would give us a revelation. This expectation means that the evidence required for us to justifiably believe in a revelation is less than it would otherwise be (that is, if we did not already have some evidence that there is a God who would be likely to give such a revelation).

Review: The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne

Introduction. In The Coherence of Theism (henceforth CoT), Richard Swinburne is concerned with examining whether the central doctrines of classical theism[1] are coherent (that is, free from contradiction). It is important to understand what this limited goal means for the theist/atheist debate. If the atheist can convincingly claim that theism is incoherent, then the game is over: theism cannot be true. For the theist to show that theism is coherent is only a partial victory. Then theism is in some sense possibly true. Further grounds would have to be given to show that it is in fact true. [2]

Part I: Religious Language. In Part I, Swinburne sketches various criteria for coherence. The basic means for testing whether or not some proposition is (in)coherent is to ‘unpack’[3] the concept and see what results. This is necessary because while some contradictions are explicit (The author of Hamlet did not write Hamlet) many others are implicit. Swinburne closes out this section by tackling a handful of topics, including ways in which theology involves ‘mundane’ uses of words (i.e., theological terms are defined using words that are close to their more pedestrian, ‘every day’ usages) and more ‘analogical’ or ‘stretched’ uses of words. Even when theology is using words in more mundane ways, the properties involved (e.g., power, goodness) may involve those properties occurring in unfamiliar combinations[4]. Swinburne helpfully notes that this occurs not only in theology, but also in science.[5] Using non-religious examples, Swinburne illustrates how mundane language implies only similarities, not absolute sameness. Although myself and my desk are alike in some ways (we both are composed of matter, have weight, occupy space) we are very different in other ways (I am made of flesh and bone, can lose weight through diet and exercise, and breathe—none of which apply to my desk).

Review: Warrant and Proper Function by Alvin Plantinga

In Warrant: The CurrentDebate, Alvin Plantinga examined various proposed accounts of warrant (that which turns true belief into knowledge) and found them all wanting. The most pervasive failing, as he saw it, was that the various accounts failed to incorporate a notion of proper function (henceforth PF).

In Chapter 1 of Warrantand Proper Function, Plantinga begins by fleshing out his theory of warrant. He argues that the concept of PF seems bound up with other, interdefinable notions: design, damage, purpose, normativity, and the like.  PF is applies to obviously designed artifacts (like cars or computers) but is a concept also employed in the biological and physical sciences. But PF is not enough for warrant. A satisfactory account of warrant must also incorporate considerations of cognitive environment, degrees of firmness with which a belief is held, that the cognitive faculty being deployed is ‘aimed’ at truth, and that the design plan is a good one (i.e., one that has a high objective probability of generating true beliefs). For example, our senses might possess PF in earth’s cognitive environment but not on another planet with very different laws of nature.[1] Warrant must also take account of the fact that some beliefs are more warranted than others because we hold them more firmly. If we hold belief A and B, and both are generated by cognitive faculties properly functioning on the basis of a good design plan successfully aimed at the truth,  but we hold one more tentatively than the other, the more firmly held one is more warranted and is more likely to be ‘knowledge’.[2] The point, one might say, of a particular cognitive module must be the production of true beliefs. If not, then a cognitive module might be functioning properly (and thus satisfying one of the constraints of this model of warrant) but not be aimed at true beliefs (and thus violate another constraint of this model).[3] If the design plan is a poor one, then the likelihood that the beliefs generated by it are untrue. If untrue, they are not knowledge and—by definition—cannot be warranted.[4]

Book Review: Faith and Reason by Richard Swinburne

Faith and Reason (henceforth FAR) is the final volume in Richard Swinburne’s trilogy on the philosophy of religion.  In The Coherence of Theism Swinburne examined the claims of theism and came to the provisional conclusions that (a) theism was not demonstrably incoherent and (b) a more feasible but indirect way of arguing for the coherence of theism was to provide grounds for thinking theism was true. So in The Existence of God Swinburne examined the arguments for and against the existence of God and concluded that the preponderance of evidence indicated God exists.  In FAR Swinburne is concerned with the relevance of such judgments of probability (i.e., ‘God exists’) to religious faith.

Book Review: The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes by Edward R. Wierenga

Although the problem of evil (in its various formulations) has long been the predominate anti-theistic argument, another family of arguments against traditional theistic belief attacks what has been called “the coherence of theism.” These arguments question whether the standard divine attributes (such as omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness) are coherent notions, and whether they are consistent with each other. Christian apologists, therefore, will take considerable interest in the work of philosophers of religion who develop, defend, or critique various formulations of the standard divine attributes. Edward Wierenga’s book The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes is an excellent contribution to this discussion.

Wierenga opens the book by noting that, despite the immense diversity evident in the various theistic traditions, there is broad agreement on which properties are central to the divine nature. In particular, the variety of sources that influence theistic thought, “…concur in attributing wisdom, power, and goodness to God. With somewhat less universality, they also ascribe eternity, immutability, timelessness, and other attributes to God.”[1] Accordingly, after introducing possible worlds semantics and laying out some of the metaphysical assumptions that will operate throughout the remainder of the book, Wierenga proceeds to analyze these divine attributes one at a time, with the aim of finding “historically adequate and philosophically defensible formulations of claims about the nature of God.”[2]

Philosopher Interview: Max Andrews

Today's interview is with Max Andrews. Max is a graduate student from Liberty University, whose research is in philosophy of science and religion. He talks about his background and education, his interest and research in multiverse theory, the fine-tuning argument, Liberty University, advice for Christians studying apologetics, his Sententias blog, the development of the Christian mind, and applying apologetics.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (50 min)
Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Book Review: The Christian God by Richard Swinburne

In The Christian God, Richard Swinburne examines basic metaphysical categories[1]. Only when that task is done does he turn to an analysis of divine properties, the divine nature, and the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.

I have found it necessary to develop at length views on straight philosophical questions, which could then be applied subsequently to the philosophy of religion….Since religious issues are more contested even than general secular philosophical issues, we are more likely to reach clear and justified conclusions about the former if we start with a firm base in the latter. My strategy in The Christian God is the same. Part I is concerned with general metaphysical issues….Part II then expounds the account of the divine nature given by Western religion, with the aid of these concepts, and shows how it can naturally be extended to embrace the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. (Location 54, Kindle edition)

The Christian God is a very dense work of metaphysics, and not all of the metaphysical distinctions Swinburne makes in Part I are central to the goings-on in Part II. Of those that are central, even fewer are justified by arguments that can be easily fit into a succinct review. So in outlining Part I, I will mention only those distinctions which are central to Part II. Further, in discussing those distinctions, I will simply state the conclusion of Swinburne’s argument(s) supporting those distinctions.

Book Review: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies

Are there any reasons to believe that God exists? What is this being we call God? Is morality dependent on such a being? And is there life after death? While theology certainly touches upon these topics, philosophy of religion is the branch of philosophy that also deals with these questions among many others. In An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Brian Davies seeks to offer beginners in this field a survey that explores the most common elements found when studying the philosophy of religion. What I will try to do in this review is not so much go through every chapter—since it’s material similar to what you’d find in other philosophy of religion books—but to highlight some of the unique aspects of Davies’ book, while also briefly touching upon some of the classical material, i.e., cosmological, design, and ontological arguments.

Davies begins his book in a unique way by introducing a distinction between two different conceptions of God: one being what he calls “classic theism” and the other “theistic personalism” (2). This is unique because this particular distinction is not often made in many introductory philosophy texts, and it certainly draws attention to the implications that flow from adopting one over the other, and it sets the direction for the remainder of the book and how one ought to approach each issue.

Philosopher Interview: Chad Meister

Today's interview is with Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College. He talks about his background and how he got into philosophy and apologetics, a defense of philosophy as a tool in apologetics, what philosophy is and isn't, his book Building Belief: Constructing Faith from the Ground Up, the starting points for apologetic/evangelistic engagement, ontology/epistemology distinctions when reasoning about God's existence, the role of the Holy Spirit, advice for communicators, and more.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (52 min)

Books by Chad V. Meister include:
• Building Belief: Constructing Faith from the Ground Up
• Evil: A Guide for the Perplexed
• Introducing Philosophy of Religion

Enjoy.

Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Philosopher Interview: Richard Swinburne

Today's interview is with Christian philosopher of religion Richard Swinburne. He is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years Swinburne has been a proponent of philosophical arguments for the existence of God. He talks about his background, the changes in Christian philosophy in the past decades, the goal for the Christian philosopher, defending and advocating Christianity, his approach to arguing for the existence of God, challenges to Christianity, answering the problem of evil & suffering, his advice to Christian defenders, and more.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (48 min)

Books by Richard Swinburne include:
• The Coherence of Theism

• The Existence of God

• Faith and Reason

• Providence and the Problem of Evil

• The Resurrection of God Incarnate

• Was Jesus God?

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Book Review: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga

There are few names bigger than Alvin Plantinga when it comes to philosophy of religion and there are few topics more hotly debated than science and religion. Plantinga’s latest book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, & Naturalism (hereafter WCRL) has therefore generated much interest as it has one of the foremost philosophers of religion taking on this highly contentious topic.
Plantinga minces no words. The very first line of the book outlines his central claim: “there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and theistic religion, and superficial concord and deep conflict between science and naturalism.”1

The first part of the book is dedicated to the superficial conflict between science and religious belief. The reason this alleged conflict is important is due, largely, to the success of the scientific enterprise. Because science has shown itself to be a reliable way to come to know the world, if religion is in direct conflict with science, then it would seem to discredit religion. Not only that, but, Plantinga argues, Christians should have a “particularly high regard” for science due to the foundations of the scientific enterprise on a study of the world.2

Philosopher Interview: Greg Ganssle

Today's interview is with Christian philosopher Greg Ganssle. He talks about his work with Rivendell Institute, how he became a Christian and got interested in philosophy, his key areas of focus (philosophy of religion), the influence of his study on his faith, his view of philosophy as it relates to the faith, evaluating truth claims from various systems of thought, atheism and whether or not it is making truth claims about God's existence, his intro to philosophy book Thinking About God, how to raise the bar of Christian thought, the role of a basic understanding of philosophy, learning about logic, various ways to think about apologetics, the impact of the new atheism and the arguments they have brought to the table, his advice to Christian apologists, the importance of knowing the Gospel, being a better communicator, and more.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here. (63 min)

Books by Greg Ganssle include:
• Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy
• A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism
• God & Time: Four Views

Enjoy.
Subscribe to the Apologetics 315 Interviews podcast here or in iTunes.

Book Review: Thinking About God by Greg Ganssle

Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy by Greg Ganssle is an introduction to philosophy that is extremely accessible and readable, while at the same time not sacrificing depth or substance. This brief review will outline the overall content the book for prospective readers of this really good philosophy intro.

Ganssle begins with the question: Why bother thinking about God? That is, before doing the heavy lifting, the author lays a good foundation for the reasons one should do serious thinking about the question of God and all that it entails. One of the reasons to think about God is that it affects nearly every area of one's life. It is also one of the foundational questions explored in philosophy, which, the author proposes, is "the rational investigation of the most basic questions."(152) Ganssle also discusses the tools of philosophy and good reasons for doing philosophy. He emphasizes that thinking and faith go hand in hand.

What Does it Mean to be Good? - Greg Ganssle & Scott Sehon in Dialogue

In this audio, provided by the Veritas Forum (video here / audio here), two philosophers discuss what it means to be good. Speaking first is the secular perspective of Bowdoin Philosophy Professor Scott Sehon, followed by the Christian perspective of Senior Fellow at the Rivendell Institute at Yale Greg Ganssle. They discuss the relationship between morality and religion. An interesting dialogue (followed by Q&A) that lets both views be heard in a respectful manner. Veritas Forum podcast RSS feed here.

Full MP3 Audio here (82 min)

Enjoy.

Philosopher Interview: Paul Moser

Today's interview is with Christian philosopher Paul Moser, Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. He talks about his background, epistemology and evidence, his work on New Testament epistemology, the evidence for God, the role (or not) of natural theology, problems with the "two-step" approach, divine hiddenness, purposively available evidence for God, the role of human volition, authoritative evidence vs. spectator evidence, willingness and evidence, advice for Christian apologists, and more.

Full Interview MP3 Audio here (53 min)

Moser's books include:
• The Evidence for God
• The Elusive God (review here)
• Divine Hiddenness
• Knowledge and Evidence

Enjoy.