Terminology Tuesday: Philosophical Theology

Philosophical Theology: Philosophical inquiry into the key beliefs of theologians and concepts of theology. In addition to such topics as arguments for the existence of God, philosophical theologians attempt to analyze such divine attributes as omnipotence, omniscience and eternality and also (with respect to Christianity) to assess the coherence and plausibility of such theological doctrines as the Trinity, the atonement and the incarnation.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 91-92.

Angus Menuge Interview Transcript

The following transcript is from an Apologetics 315 interview with Angus Menuge. Original audio here. Transcript index here. If you enjoy transcripts, please consider supporting, which makes this possible.

---

BA: Hello. This is Brian Auten of Apologetics 315. Today I interview Dr. Angus Menuge, professor of philosophy at Concordia University. He is author of Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science and many articles on the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and Christian apologetics. He’s the editor of several collections of essays on C.S. Lewis, Christ in culture, and the scientific vocation.

The purpose of this interview is to find out a bit more about Dr. Menuge, his work in the area of philosophy of mind, the ontological argument from reason, and his advice for Christian apologists.

Well, thanks for taking the time to speak with me today, Angus.

AM: Thank you for having me, Brian.

Book Review: The Philosophy of History: Naturalism and Religion by James Stroud

With a title like The Philosophy of History: Naturalism and Religion, it is not surprising to find that the theses James Stroud defends in this book pertain to historiography and the impact of historical method on the assessment of religious claims. But what is surprising about a book with this title and focus is its similarity to the myriad introductory works of apologetics available today, which present an accessible treatment of common apologetic issues, ranging from the origins of the universe and the grounding of morality to the historical Jesus.

Stroud has two central theses in The Philosophy of History, one of which gets more attention than the other. His primary thesis is the claim that naturalism should not be assumed a priori in historical and scientific studies; an “open” methodology which allows for both natural and supernatural explanations should be employed instead of the currently popular “closed” methodology wherein only naturalistic explanations are tolerated. Stroud also defends a secondary thesis, which claims that there is a greater overlap or unity between science and history than is often recognized. In particular, he argues that certain “past singularities” (one-time historical events) such as the origin of the universe, of life, and of humanity, are, though often classified as matters of ‘origins science’, equally at home under the umbrella of history. Stroud repeatedly makes statements like “Origins science is really ‘history’ (or history as a weak science[1]…)”[2] and “…the historian is more capable of addressing questions of origin science with philosophy as an aid than the operation scientist.”[3] “Moreover,” he says, “weaker sciences such as anthropology and sociology as well as linguistics all fall under the much larger umbrella of ‘history.’”[4] This second thesis receives the most attention in the fourth chapter, “What about History?” Though interesting, this point apparently lacks methodological import, for as Stroud ventures into historical and scientific issues later in the book, they are treated in pretty much exactly the same way that they have typically been treated in recent discussion, even to the point of employing unaltered or mostly unaltered versions of arguments used by William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Gary Habermas, and others.

Terminology Tuesday: Causation

Causation: The fundamental kind of relation expressed by such terms as produce, originate, and bring about. The items related (cause and effect) may be persons, objects, states of affairs or events. Aristotle recognized four types of causality: efficient, final, formal and material. David Hume famously tried to analyze causality as a constant conjunction between different types of events. Philosophers such as Thomas Reid have argued for a fundamental type of causation known as "agent causality," in which persons (not merely events occurring in persons) bring about effects. Important philosophical disputes in this area include debates about determinism (Are all events causally determined, or do persons sometimes possess free will?) and about the principle of sufficient reason, which in some forms holds that all events (at least of a certain type) or all contingent substances must have a cause. This principle plays a key role in cosmological, or first cause, arguments for God's existence.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 22.

Terminology Tuesday: Necessity

Necessity: One of the family of modal properties, along with possibility and impossibility, attributed to propositions, beings and properties. A being possesses a property by necessity if there is no possible world in which that being could exist without having that property. A property that is possessed by necessity is also said to be an essence of the object that possesses it since its presence is essential to that object.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 80.

Terminology Tuesday: Solipsism

Solipsism: The doctrine that a person has a direct awareness only of his or her own conscious state and is in some way cut off from the reality of other things. The extreme form of solipsism is ontological solipsism, which denies the reality of anything outside one's own mind. The denials that a person can know the external world or other minds can be viewed as forms of epistemological solipsism.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 109.

Review: Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy by Jerry Walls

In Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy, Jerry Walls has four goals: (1) to argue that heaven is plausibly real (based on the existence of near death experiences—henceforth NDEs) (2) to defend the concept of heaven against various objections (3) to demonstrate the central role that heaven plays in Christian theology and (4) to show how fruitful a philosophical concept heaven is. Rather than writing at length on (1), I will simply point the interested reader elsewhere[1]. For the sake of completeness I will briefly address (2) before spending the bulk of the review on (3) and most of all (4), both because (4) is of most interest to me personally and is, I think, an underexplored area in philosophy of religion. As will be seen, there are tight links between (3) and (4).

Defending heaven against objections. In regards to (2), a couple of prominent ‘counter-Heaven’ objections and their rebuttals are as follows. One involves the complaint that Christ made failing to hold a belief (Christ is the Messiah) a sin that carries the consequence of eternal damnation. With disarming simplicity, Walls explores what it means to be in Heaven—namely, to be in the direct and loving presence of God. T he upshot is that Heaven won’t be Heaven for someone who is not already in love with God.[2] Walls then turns to a discussion of soteriology, broadly speaking.[3] Throughout, he plumps for a broadly orthodox form of inclusivism[4]. What is unique about Walls (although it is not central to this particular work[5]) as an evangelical scholar is that he does not hesitate to invoke the possibility of purgatory[6] to answer many of these issues.

Two Kinds of Defeaters for Beliefs

The following excerpt from Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (p.88) is a helpful explanation of defeaters for beliefs:

"One factor that affects whether and to what degree a belief is justified is the presence of defeaters for that belief. Suppose Smith has a blief that Q (e.g., that a statue is blue), and suppose that R (e.g., the way the statue looks to him) is a reason or ground Smith has for holding to Q. A defeater removes or weakens justification for a belief.

There are at least two kinds of defeaters. First, there are rebutting defeaters, which directly attack the conclusion or thing being believed. In the case above, a rebutting defeater would be a reason to believe not-Q, i.e., a reason to believe that the statue is not blue. An example would be a case where the museum director and a number of reliable, honest people assure you that the statue is grey.

Second, there are undercutting defeaters. These defeaters do not directly attack the thing believed (by trying to show that it is false), but rather they attack the notion that R is a good reason for Q. Undercutting defeaters do not attack Q directly; they attack R and in some way undercut R as a good reason for Q. In the example above, an undercutting defeater would be evidence that there is blue lighting around the statue that makes everything in that room look blue to people.

In the example, the undercutting defeater removes one's reason for thinking that the statue is blue and the rebutting defeater gives one reason for thinking that the statue is not-blue. In different ways, defeaters can remove the justification for a belief."

Why Should Christians Study Philosophy? by Peter S. Williams

A philosopher is someone dedicated to the wise pursuit and dissemination of true answers to significant questions through the practice of good intellectual habits. Christian spirituality is greatly concerned with wisdom, truth and goodness. The term philosopher is derived from the Greek words philo, meaning ‘brotherly love’ and sophia, meaning ‘wisdom’; hence a philosopher is literally a ‘lover of wisdom’. Philosophy as such, then, is not alien to the gospel; for scripture teaches that Jesus is the Christian’s brother (Hebrews 2:11-12) ‘in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ (Colossians 2:3) As Thomas Aquinas said, ‘The pursuit of wisdom especially joins man to God in friendship.’[i]

Everyone has a philosophy in the sense of a worldview – a way of understanding and navigating through reality. Not everyone makes the effort to think systematically about the wisdom of their worldview. However, Christians are called to love God with their minds as well as their hearts and their strength (cf. Mark 12:30-31), and as David A. Horner explains: ‘Truly loving God with your mind means being intentional about your intellectual life, learning to think well.’[ii] Thus the apostle Paul urges Christians: ‘Do not conform . . . to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will.’ (Romans 12:2) The contents and intellectual habits of our minds, coupled with the choices, commitments and attitudes of our hearts, issue in the behaviour that characterises and re-enforces our spirituality. Thus philosophy is an integral component of any spirituality, including Christian spirituality.

A philosopher seeks to know and defend the truth by thinking carefully and arguing well. These attitudes and activities, and the philosophical tools and virtues they require, are integral to the Christian ministries of teaching (including bible-study, preaching and systematic theology) and apologetics (i.e. persuasive evangelism). Philosophy helps us to fulfil the command of 1 Peter 3:15: ‘Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect . . .’ On the flip side of this coin, it was Paul who highlighted the need for Christians to ‘demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God’ (2 Corinthians 10:5) As C.S. Lewis wrote: ‘Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.’[iii]

Why should Christians study philosophy? First, because philosophy is unavoidable and its wiser to have a studied opinion than an unstudied opinion. Second, because philosophy is part-and-parcel of our spirituality, and the divine command to love God includes the command to love Him with our minds and to be spiritually transformed by the renewing of our minds. Third, because philosophy plays an indispensable role in the teaching ministry of the Church broadly construed. None of this means that Christians are all obliged to study philosophy formally. Nevertheless, we should heed the call ‘to work out the salvation that God has given you with a proper sense of awe and responsibility.’ (Philippians 2:12, J.B. Phillips) Philosophy can help us to do that.

Peter’s latest book is A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom (Paternoster, 2013).

Peter has a new website @ www.peterswilliams.com

---

[i] Thomas Aquinas, Suma Contra Gentiles, Book One.
[ii] David A. Horner, Mind Your Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), p. 49.
[iii] C.S. Lewis, ‘On Learning in Wartime’ in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (MacMillan, 1980), p. 28.

Review: The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity

There was a point in history when it may have appeared to Christians that their own tradition virtually dominated the world’s religious outlook, but following the so-called “expansion of Europe,” awareness of religious diversity increased, and the intellectual challenges posed by such diversity intensified. Today’s Christian apologists are faced with tough questions about religious diversity: How can a Christian rationally believe the claims of his own exclusivist tradition in light of all the competing exclusivist traditions out there? How can a Christian maintain that salvation is limited only to those few who put their faith in Jesus Christ? How should a Christian respond to proposals such as John Hick’s model of religious pluralism, according to which all the major religions of the world are responding to the same ultimate reality? Apologists interested in these questions will find much of value in Kevin Meeker and Phillip Quinn’s anthology The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity (hereafter PCRD).

Meeker and Quinn note that there are basically three broad types of positions taken by religious people in response to the challenge of diversity: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Exclusivism and pluralism lie on opposite ends of the spectrum—the exclusivist holding that his own particular religion is right while others (at least insofar as they contradict his) are in error, the pluralist holding that many religious traditions are acceptable and soteriologically efficacious responses to ultimate reality. Lying in the middle are various forms of inclusivism, a common Christian variety being the claim that people from all manner of religious traditions will be saved, but all of them (many unknowingly) by the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

The Problem of Evil Explained in Three Videos

In this set of three videos, Christian philosopher Greg Ganssle explains the classic argument that God does not exist, called ‘The Problem of Evil’. He distinguishes two versions of that argument. He gives a response to the deductive version of the Problem of Evil on behalf of someone who believes that God exists. Then Greg considers the evidential version of the Problem of Evil, and gives a theistic response. More resources by Greg Ganssle here. More videos like these here. [HT: Doug Geivett]

Review: Mind, Brain and Free Will by Richard Swinburne

Theologians and scientists seem blissfully unaware that that the soul is alive and well in contemporary philosophy of religion. JP Moreland, Dean Zimmerman, William Hasker, Charles Taliaferro, Stuart Goetz, Robin Collins and Alvin Plantinga have all produced novel and rigorous arguments in defence of dualism – that you are an immaterial self and not identical to your body. This must be gratifying for Richard Swinburne, who swam against the tides of philosophical fashion in 1986 with The Evolution of the Soul. Mind, Brain and Free Will updates his arguments for dualism. The book is refreshingly clear, rigorously argued and a joy to read.

Swinburne argues that physical events and conscious events – beliefs, desires, thoughts, purposes and sensations – are not identical. To put that another way, the terms we use to pick out physical events, and the terms we use to pick out mental events, never refer to the same thing. We need to think a little about words and concepts here – after all, we cannot say much about the world without them! Anyone who knows what terms like “red” or “pain” mean knows how to use them. They know exactly what it is to have a sensation of red or a pain. They know how when and how to apply the terms, and can make simple inferences using the terms. (For example we can infer “it is a sensation” and “it is unpleasant” from “it is a pain.”)

Sunday Quote: C.S. Lewis on Philosophy

"Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered... The learned life then, is for some, a duty."
- C.S. Lewis

Review: Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga

In Warranted Christian Belief (henceforth WCB), Alvin Plantinga examines the conditions under which theistic and Christian beliefs possess warrant—that which transforms true belief into knowledge. His definition of warrant (defended at length in the prior two books in this trilogy) is as follows:

A belief has warrant just if it is produced by cognitive processes or faculties that are functioning properly, in a cognitive environment propitious for that exercise of cognitive powers, according to a design plan that is successfully aimed at the production of true beliefs. (Location 114 Kindle edition)

It is important to recognize that Plantinga’s goal in this book is not to argue for the truth of Christian belief, but for its warrant. Once the reader realizes this, it becomes clear why Plantinga introduces the distinction between de facto and de jure objections to theistic and Christian belief. A de facto objection attacks the truth of Christianity and is hence making a metaphysical or an ontological claim (e.g., God does not exist). Popular de facto objections are the logical problem of evil or that the attributes of God are logically inconsistent. De jure objections are epistemological in nature. For example, a de jure objection might hold that whether or not Christian belief is true, it is nonetheless unjustified or unwarranted to hold such belief. Plantinga sees the book serving two distinct functions:

On the one hand, it is an exercise in apologetics and philosophy of religion, an attempt to demonstrate the failure of a range of objects to Christian belief. …. On the other hand, however, the book is an effort in Christian philosophy…the effort to consider and answer philosophical questions from a Christian perspective. (Location 153 Kindle edition) 

Review: Warrant: The Current Debate by Alvin Plantinga

Before summarizing Warrant: The Current Debate (henceforth WCD), it is helpful to understand, in broad outline, Plantinga’s Warrant trilogy[1] as a whole. In WCD, Plantinga surveys various naturalistic versions of warrant and, by examining scenarios in which the conditions for warrant posited by a given theory of warrant are met but knowledge is still lacking, teases out what the missing ingredients are. In the next volume (Warrant and Proper Function) Plantinga fleshes out his proposed definition of warrant and examines its adequacy by applying it to a baker’s dozen of our cognitive faculties (including memory, perception, and testimony). Along the way he notes that several of the aspects of his version of warrant fit better with theism than with naturalism. In the final volume (Warranted Christian Belief) Plantinga examines the role of warrant in theistic belief in general and Christian belief in particular.

In the introduction to WCD Plantinga lays his cards on the table: he is an externalist in epistemology. All kinds of subtle qualifications to the definitions of internalism and externalism can be found in Plantinga’s work, but the basic idea is that an internalist with respect to warrant is concerned with how things go with an individual ‘downstream from experience’. For example, an internalist may be most concerned not with what is going on in the environment external to the individual, but what is internal and (to some extent) under the control or present to the awareness of the individual. An externalist, as might be expected, places more emphasis on states of affairs which are external to the individual or outside the control or awareness of the individual. (Again, these are imprecise terms. At various places throughout WCD, Plantinga encouragingly notes the ambiguities and the need for multiple examples before a given definition in this area becomes clear). And, of course, there are multiple varieties and subvarieties of both internalism and externalism.[2]

Terminology Tuesday: Principle of Sufficient Reason

Principle of Sufficient Reason: The claim that there must be an explanation for every positive fact, some reason why that fact obtains rather than not obtaining. This principle is generally attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, for whom it took the form of the assumption that God has a sufficient reason for every choice he has made. The principle, or some variation on it, often plays a key role in cosmological arguments for the existence of the finite universe. Those who deny the principle of sufficient reason are committed to the claim that some facts obtain for no reason, and thus that there is a surd (nonrational) element to the universe.1

1. C.Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 112.

What was last year's post? See here: James White's debate with Bart Ehrman.

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.

Terminology Tuesday: Coherence Theory of Truth

Coherence theory of truth: A theory of knowledge that asserts that a given proposition or statement is true when it is consistent within a larger set of propositions also taken to be true. If propositions come into conflict (are contradictory), it is assumed that either one or both of the propositions is false. The weakness of the coherence theory of truth is that there can be no proof of the "starting point" of the "first proposition" of a belief system; instead, such a system of beliefs is usually accepted on the basis that it is self-evidently true.1

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 27.

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.

Terminology Tuesday: A posteriori, A priori

A posteriori, a priori: Terms used to refer to whether an assertion is dependent on experience (a posteriori) or independent of experience (a priori). For example, if one observes creation and sees in it an organized pattern, it might be concluded a posteriori (i.e., on the basis of observing creation) that God exists as its cause. However, if God's existence can be proved on some basis prior to sense experience, then the existence of God is argued a priori.1

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 7.