Paul's review
Reason for the Hope Within
by Michael J. Murray
Paul's review
Reason for the Hope Within by Michael J. Murray
[close]
blog this review
Copy/paste the text below into your blog.
Paul's review
rating:
bookshelves:
apologetics,
philosophical-theology
Reason for the Hope Within attempts to fill the lacuna between non-philosophically rigorous, yet theologically orthodox apologetic material. The introduction rightly points out that Christian apologetics has mostly been done by the theologian, who, unfortunately, hasn't always been known for his clarity of thought, cogency of argumentation, or philosophical sophistication. Conversely, the philosopher hasn't always been known for his rigorous orthodoxy. Reason for the Hope Within presents a group of young(er) Christian thinkers who stand in the gap, excelling in both philosophical erudition and theological erudition . . . at least that's the claim.
It is true that Christian apologetics needs more of the above approach. Apologists, especially in my tradition, haven't been known for their philosophical sophistication, just their theological sophistication. Theologians haven't always been known for the clarity in which they express their ideas. But, philosophers, though known for clari...more Reason for the Hope Within attempts to fill the lacuna between non-philosophically rigorous, yet theologically orthodox apologetic material. The introduction rightly points out that Christian apologetics has mostly been done by the theologian, who, unfortunately, hasn't always been known for his clarity of thought, cogency of argumentation, or philosophical sophistication. Conversely, the philosopher hasn't always been known for his rigorous orthodoxy. Reason for the Hope Within presents a group of young(er) Christian thinkers who stand in the gap, excelling in both philosophical erudition and theological erudition . . . at least that's the claim.
It is true that Christian apologetics needs more of the above approach. Apologists, especially in my tradition, haven't been known for their philosophical sophistication, just their theological sophistication. Theologians haven't always been known for the clarity in which they express their ideas. But, philosophers, though known for clarity and precision in thought, haven't always been known for their theological sophistication. The best apologist will master all the fields.
Sometimes it's "the thought that counts." That's why I gave the book 4 stars. It's a laudable goal. But I felt how I feel with most U.S. Olympic baseball or basketball teams. The "Dream Team" is always the team I would have dreamed up! But, what cha gonna do? At least they represent your country. So you cheer for them. A few of the guys are really good, but you wonder why the other guys were included. Maybe they had a friend on the Olympic committee. Perhaps their uncle is in the mob, makes the committee an offer they can't refuse. Perhaps some of the better players turned down the offer to play for their country. Whatever it is, we still cheer for the team, even though we would have rather it been a bit different. That's how I felt with this book.
Ch. 1 Michael Murray does a good job placing the apologetic situation within the postmodern context. He argues, correctly in my view, that there are some good things we can learn from the postmodern way of thinking. One is in the determinative role presuppositions play in how we assess the "evidence." But, granting this, we still don't capitulate to relativism. There is one true set of facts, and one true set of presuppositions that best interprets the facts. Best makes them intelligible.
Ch. 2 William Davis presents theistic arguments. He follows one main thread through the chapter, that leads to a best explanation type argument. Interspersed through the chapter are various inset boxes containing other arguments not included in the main thread he follows. Overall he attempts to show that there are many a argument for theism, but he ultimately comes down saying that an experience of God is the best stuff a believer has to rest her beliefs on. Arguments may strengthen this experience, but it ultimately comes down to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Ch. 3 Robin Collins presents the "fine-tuning argument for God's exist. This argument boils down to the findings of science that indicate that our universe is fine-tuned to support life. The percentages are very small. If the explosion of the big bang had been differed in strength by as little as one part in 10 to the 60th power, life wouldn't be possible, if the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together had been stronger or weaker by 5%, life would be impossible, if the electromagnetic force had been slightly stronger or weaker, life would not have formed. The conclusion is that the best explanation of these fine-tuning facts is that the universe had to have been designed. Collins looks at a few of the major competing theories and responses, concluding that they fail for various reasons.
Ch. 4 was one of my favorites. Daniel Howard-Snyder looks at God, evil, and suffering. He presents what is known as the "skeptical theist" response to some evidential arguments from evil. The gist is that we are in no position to move from "I can't see how God has a good reason for this evil," to the conclusion "therefore, God has no good reason for this evil." Howard-Snyder calls this inference the "noseeum inference." That is, it moves from "noseeum" to "thereisnun" (I take credit for that latter name!).Howards-Snyder presents various reasons for why this thesis doesn't hold in the case of judging the infinite plan and motives of God. The field is simply to large for us to say with any confidence at all that we have looked at enough of the field to draw a conclusion about the whole field. In my view, the skeptical theist argument is a fantastic weapon to have in your theodicy arsenal.
Ch. 5 John O' Leary-Hawthorn presents arguments for atheism, breaking them up into two parts: Lack of evidence for theism and character of theists. The book could have done without this chapter. I found it to broad, and over generalized. Besides that, I don't find the "free will" argument to be a successful theodicy (for the Divine Silence argument, grouped under category one), or in accord with the teaching of the Bible.
Ch. 6 Caleb Miller discusses faith and reason. I found much to agree with in this chapter. Miller invokes much of Plantinga, but his analysis of when faith and reason "clash" were inadequate. He also doesn't give proper due to the traditional tripartite definition of faith when he parses out the different understandings of "faith" as used in the Christian community.
Ch. 7 is on religious pluralism by Timothy O'Connor. This was another excellent chapter in the book. O'Connor shreds the arguments the pluralists use, verging on overkill! He repeatedly points out that the pluralist must employ self-excepting argumentation to make his case. Pluralism is ultimately self-defeating.
Ch. 8 is Collins' second, it is on eastern religions. This chapter is another gem. Though it was an admittedly short introduction and critique of two eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism (and their various explications). Collins presents a brief overview of the various schools, critiques them, gives their responses to the critiques, and then critiques the responses. This chapter should be enough to whet your whistle as to how you can critique eastern philosopher. This is especially pertinent given our times. Oprah and other are constantly pushing an eastern/new age view of the world. For one, you will be able to show how they don't necessarily stand in line with the eastern teachers. Secondly, to the extent that they do, you will be able to undermine their arguments - especially since most Americans are unthinking sheeple who vomit out whatever they read by Tolle et al. Thirdly, supplement Collins's arguments with the works of Peter Jones on Gnosticism and new age thought, and you'll be able to mop up this popular way of thinking sweeping across America. (IMO, Islam should have been addressed in this book too. I know a couple chapters that could've been dropped to fit that study in.)
Ch. 9 Scott Davidson discusses providence and human freedom. he wants to hold to a somewhat strong view of providence and yet libertarian freedom. he opts for Molinism. This chapter was simply unimpressive.
Ch. 10 Thomas Senor looks at the trinity and the incarnation. I do not hold his views on these matters. He claims that all he needs to do is offer a possible model whereby those doctrines are rendered coherent and then he's done his job. I disagree. Not only must the model be coherent, it must be orthodox. Regarding the Incarnation, he claims that kenotism is problematic but still offers a coherent picture, so it may work. Or, one might like Morris's two-minds Christology. Though better than kenotism, that view is unsuccessful too. See the book Paradox in Christian Theology by James Anderson for reasons why this is so. As to the Trinity, Senor advances social trinitarianism. As I believe the orthodox statement teaches a numerical identity between the hypostasis and the ousia, I reject the social trinitarian model as heterodox.
Ch. 11 is on the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, by Trenton Merricks. I thoroughly enjoyed this chapter, even though Merricks is a Christian physicalist and I am a dualist. The chapter was provocative and his position clearly presented. His arguments against dualism didn't stand, and his answer to those arguments is actually worse than what the dualist can say. I can't say more because I'd want to type too much and I'm already running out of remaining characters.
Ch.12 is Murray's second and it is on heaven and hell. Murray argues that the Calvinist picture is troublesome and briefly dismisses it, he then tries to argue for an eternal hell against Universalist arguments. I think orthodox Arminians meet their match in the Universalist. Since I don't hold to Murray's view on agency, or his view on hell, I was not excited with this chapter. It's not just because I disagree. I liked Merricks's chapter and I heartily disagree with him. Not only do I disagree with Murray, the arguments weren't particularly impressive.
Ch. 13 is a good little chapter on religion and science by W. Christopher Smith. Smith presents some good presuppositionalist insights on the "science religion" debate.
Ch. 14 was on miracles and Christian theism by J.A. Cover. I was unimpressed with this chapter. I do not share Cover's view of miracles or providence or "natural law."
Ch. 15 discusses Christianity and ethics by Frances Howard-Snyder. I was not excited about this chapter either. Howard-Snyder's ethic was too minimal and her exegesis in some places was horrible.
Ch. 16 on the Authority of Scripture by Douglas Blount was descent. Blount argues that it is reasonable to believe in inerrancy and that the Bible's say-so can be a good basis to base beliefs on. I wouldn't agree with him on everything, though.
Sorry for the brevity of the last few chapters, ran out of space....less
It is true that Christian apologetics needs more of the above approach. Apologists, especially in my tradition, haven't been known for their philosophical sophistication, just their theological sophistication. Theologians haven't always been known for the clarity in which they express their ideas. But, philosophers, though known for clari...more Reason for the Hope Within attempts to fill the lacuna between non-philosophically rigorous, yet theologically orthodox apologetic material. The introduction rightly points out that Christian apologetics has mostly been done by the theologian, who, unfortunately, hasn't always been known for his clarity of thought, cogency of argumentation, or philosophical sophistication. Conversely, the philosopher hasn't always been known for his rigorous orthodoxy. Reason for the Hope Within presents a group of young(er) Christian thinkers who stand in the gap, excelling in both philosophical erudition and theological erudition . . . at least that's the claim.
It is true that Christian apologetics needs more of the above approach. Apologists, especially in my tradition, haven't been known for their philosophical sophistication, just their theological sophistication. Theologians haven't always been known for the clarity in which they express their ideas. But, philosophers, though known for clarity and precision in thought, haven't always been known for their theological sophistication. The best apologist will master all the fields.
Sometimes it's "the thought that counts." That's why I gave the book 4 stars. It's a laudable goal. But I felt how I feel with most U.S. Olympic baseball or basketball teams. The "Dream Team" is always the team I would have dreamed up! But, what cha gonna do? At least they represent your country. So you cheer for them. A few of the guys are really good, but you wonder why the other guys were included. Maybe they had a friend on the Olympic committee. Perhaps their uncle is in the mob, makes the committee an offer they can't refuse. Perhaps some of the better players turned down the offer to play for their country. Whatever it is, we still cheer for the team, even though we would have rather it been a bit different. That's how I felt with this book.
Ch. 1 Michael Murray does a good job placing the apologetic situation within the postmodern context. He argues, correctly in my view, that there are some good things we can learn from the postmodern way of thinking. One is in the determinative role presuppositions play in how we assess the "evidence." But, granting this, we still don't capitulate to relativism. There is one true set of facts, and one true set of presuppositions that best interprets the facts. Best makes them intelligible.
Ch. 2 William Davis presents theistic arguments. He follows one main thread through the chapter, that leads to a best explanation type argument. Interspersed through the chapter are various inset boxes containing other arguments not included in the main thread he follows. Overall he attempts to show that there are many a argument for theism, but he ultimately comes down saying that an experience of God is the best stuff a believer has to rest her beliefs on. Arguments may strengthen this experience, but it ultimately comes down to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Ch. 3 Robin Collins presents the "fine-tuning argument for God's exist. This argument boils down to the findings of science that indicate that our universe is fine-tuned to support life. The percentages are very small. If the explosion of the big bang had been differed in strength by as little as one part in 10 to the 60th power, life wouldn't be possible, if the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together had been stronger or weaker by 5%, life would be impossible, if the electromagnetic force had been slightly stronger or weaker, life would not have formed. The conclusion is that the best explanation of these fine-tuning facts is that the universe had to have been designed. Collins looks at a few of the major competing theories and responses, concluding that they fail for various reasons.
Ch. 4 was one of my favorites. Daniel Howard-Snyder looks at God, evil, and suffering. He presents what is known as the "skeptical theist" response to some evidential arguments from evil. The gist is that we are in no position to move from "I can't see how God has a good reason for this evil," to the conclusion "therefore, God has no good reason for this evil." Howard-Snyder calls this inference the "noseeum inference." That is, it moves from "noseeum" to "thereisnun" (I take credit for that latter name!).Howards-Snyder presents various reasons for why this thesis doesn't hold in the case of judging the infinite plan and motives of God. The field is simply to large for us to say with any confidence at all that we have looked at enough of the field to draw a conclusion about the whole field. In my view, the skeptical theist argument is a fantastic weapon to have in your theodicy arsenal.
Ch. 5 John O' Leary-Hawthorn presents arguments for atheism, breaking them up into two parts: Lack of evidence for theism and character of theists. The book could have done without this chapter. I found it to broad, and over generalized. Besides that, I don't find the "free will" argument to be a successful theodicy (for the Divine Silence argument, grouped under category one), or in accord with the teaching of the Bible.
Ch. 6 Caleb Miller discusses faith and reason. I found much to agree with in this chapter. Miller invokes much of Plantinga, but his analysis of when faith and reason "clash" were inadequate. He also doesn't give proper due to the traditional tripartite definition of faith when he parses out the different understandings of "faith" as used in the Christian community.
Ch. 7 is on religious pluralism by Timothy O'Connor. This was another excellent chapter in the book. O'Connor shreds the arguments the pluralists use, verging on overkill! He repeatedly points out that the pluralist must employ self-excepting argumentation to make his case. Pluralism is ultimately self-defeating.
Ch. 8 is Collins' second, it is on eastern religions. This chapter is another gem. Though it was an admittedly short introduction and critique of two eastern religions, Hinduism and Buddhism (and their various explications). Collins presents a brief overview of the various schools, critiques them, gives their responses to the critiques, and then critiques the responses. This chapter should be enough to whet your whistle as to how you can critique eastern philosopher. This is especially pertinent given our times. Oprah and other are constantly pushing an eastern/new age view of the world. For one, you will be able to show how they don't necessarily stand in line with the eastern teachers. Secondly, to the extent that they do, you will be able to undermine their arguments - especially since most Americans are unthinking sheeple who vomit out whatever they read by Tolle et al. Thirdly, supplement Collins's arguments with the works of Peter Jones on Gnosticism and new age thought, and you'll be able to mop up this popular way of thinking sweeping across America. (IMO, Islam should have been addressed in this book too. I know a couple chapters that could've been dropped to fit that study in.)
Ch. 9 Scott Davidson discusses providence and human freedom. he wants to hold to a somewhat strong view of providence and yet libertarian freedom. he opts for Molinism. This chapter was simply unimpressive.
Ch. 10 Thomas Senor looks at the trinity and the incarnation. I do not hold his views on these matters. He claims that all he needs to do is offer a possible model whereby those doctrines are rendered coherent and then he's done his job. I disagree. Not only must the model be coherent, it must be orthodox. Regarding the Incarnation, he claims that kenotism is problematic but still offers a coherent picture, so it may work. Or, one might like Morris's two-minds Christology. Though better than kenotism, that view is unsuccessful too. See the book Paradox in Christian Theology by James Anderson for reasons why this is so. As to the Trinity, Senor advances social trinitarianism. As I believe the orthodox statement teaches a numerical identity between the hypostasis and the ousia, I reject the social trinitarian model as heterodox.
Ch. 11 is on the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, by Trenton Merricks. I thoroughly enjoyed this chapter, even though Merricks is a Christian physicalist and I am a dualist. The chapter was provocative and his position clearly presented. His arguments against dualism didn't stand, and his answer to those arguments is actually worse than what the dualist can say. I can't say more because I'd want to type too much and I'm already running out of remaining characters.
Ch.12 is Murray's second and it is on heaven and hell. Murray argues that the Calvinist picture is troublesome and briefly dismisses it, he then tries to argue for an eternal hell against Universalist arguments. I think orthodox Arminians meet their match in the Universalist. Since I don't hold to Murray's view on agency, or his view on hell, I was not excited with this chapter. It's not just because I disagree. I liked Merricks's chapter and I heartily disagree with him. Not only do I disagree with Murray, the arguments weren't particularly impressive.
Ch. 13 is a good little chapter on religion and science by W. Christopher Smith. Smith presents some good presuppositionalist insights on the "science religion" debate.
Ch. 14 was on miracles and Christian theism by J.A. Cover. I was unimpressed with this chapter. I do not share Cover's view of miracles or providence or "natural law."
Ch. 15 discusses Christianity and ethics by Frances Howard-Snyder. I was not excited about this chapter either. Howard-Snyder's ethic was too minimal and her exegesis in some places was horrible.
Ch. 16 on the Authority of Scripture by Douglas Blount was descent. Blount argues that it is reasonable to believe in inerrancy and that the Bible's say-so can be a good basis to base beliefs on. I wouldn't agree with him on everything, though.
Sorry for the brevity of the last few chapters, ran out of space....less
