Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion

by Michael L. Peterson (Editor)

Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Religion features newly commissioned debates on some of the most controversial issues in the field. Is evil evidence against belief in God? Does science discredit religion? Is God’s existence the best explanation of the universe? Is morality based on God’s commands? Is eternal damnation compatible with the Christian concept of God?

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Theology

368 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 2003

Reviews

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is part of the excellent Contemporary Debates in Philosophy series by Blackwell Publishing.

A wide variety of issues are debated here. Most of the articles are written at an accessible level, a couple are fairly technical.

The format the book takes is that each topic has an opening argument pro and con. Then the authors of the articles write short rejoinders to thir opponents' main essay. Below are the debates and my picks:

***************

Part I Attacks on Religious Belief

1. Is Evil Evidence Against Belief in God?

Evil is Evidence Against Theistic Belief - William Rowe

Evil Does Not Make Atheism More Reasonable Than Theism - Daniel Howard-Snyder and Michael Bergmann

I give it to Howard-Snyder and Bergmann

2. Does Divine Hiddenness Justify Atheism

Divine Hiddenness Justifies Atheism - J.L. Schellenberg

Divine Hiddenness Does Not Justify Atheism - Paul K. Moser

I give it to Moser.

3. Does Science Discredit Religion?

Science Discredits Religion - John Worrall

The Demise of Religion: Greatly Exaggerated Reports from the Science/Religion "Wars" - Del Ratzsch

I give it to Ratzsch

Part II Arguments for Religious Belief

4. Is God's Existence the Best Explanation of the Universe?

Explanation and the Cosmological Argument - Bruce R. Reichenbach

Why Traditional Cosmological Arguments Don't Work, and a Sketch of a New One that Does - Richard M. Gale

Undecided.

5. Does religious Experience Justify Religious Belief?

Religious Experience Justifies Religious Belief - William P. Alston

Do Mystics See God? - Evan Fales

I give it to Alston

6. Is It Rational to Believe in the Resurrection?

It is Rational to Believe in the Resurrection - Stephen T. Davis

It is Not Rational to Believe in the Resurrection - Michael Martin

I give it to Davis.

Part III Issues Within Religion

7. Can Only One Religion Be True?

How to Sink in Cognitive Quicksand: Nuancing Religious Pluralism - Keith Yandell

It is Not Reasonable to Believe that Only One Religion is True

I give it to Yandell.

8. Does God Take Risks in Governing the World?

God Takes Risks - William Hasker

God Does Not Take Risks - Paul Helm

I give it to Helm.

9. Does God respond to Petitionary Prayer?

God Responds to Prayer - Michael J. Murray

God Does Not Necessarily Respond to Prayer - David Basinger

I give it to Murray

10. Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Conception of God?

Eternal Hell and the Christian Concept of God - Jerry Walls

No Hell - Thomas Talbott

I give it to Talbott

11. Is Morality Based on God's Commands?

Divine Commands Are the Foundation of Morality - Janine Marie Idziak

Ethics is Based on Natural Law - Craig A. Boyd and Raymond J. VanArragon

I give it to Boyd and VanArragon

12. Should a Christian Be a Mind-Body Dualist?

Christians Should Affirm Mind-Body Dualism - Dean W. Zimmerman

Christians Should Reject Mind-Body Dualism - Lynne Rudder Baker

I give it to Zimmerman

***************

My picks do not necessarily mean that I agree with the position. For example, I wasn't a fan Davis' watered-down defense of the rationality of the resurrection.

I am definitely not a universalist, but still gave the edge to Talbott (ch. 10).

Though I am attracted to Natural Law, I'm not sure I'd follow all of Boyd's views on the matter.

And, besides Helm, the theism represented by many of the theists is no where near where I stand doctrinally.

I'm also not a fan of the armchair, theoretical approach to the topics of debate that many took. This is justified by the fact that the book was about debates in the Philosophy of Religion. I guess that’s supposed to mean that invoking any theology, or exegetical considerations of the text of the Bible, is out of the question. This bifurcation is common. Invoking an inerrant text as the standard kind of ruins the fun of autonomously debating a position, I suppose. But it seems odd, for instance, to see two Christians debate whether Christianity holds that there is an eternal hell and not invoke the Bible on the matter. If they are committed to the Bible, and take its teachings to be inerrant, then if the Bible does, or does not, teach the existence of an eternal hell, your philosophical speculations are kind of beside the point.

Anyway, I can set all of this aside when I work through these kinds of books. And to an extent I see its usefulness. Especially if you want to answer unbelievers (or theological rationalists) on their own terms. So, I still recommend the book. Seeing positions debated by experts is an excellent way to learn about some of the opposing positions on the matter, in my opinion.

[Joseph Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great debates book in philosophy of religion! Hearing from excellent philosophers on both the positive and negative side of particular issues not only frames the subject well; it also forces the reader to think carefully about the arguments themselves. This is an excellent resource for those wanting to hear multiple angles to important (and difficult) subjects!

[Graham Yarnell]

I’ve read all that I’m going to read, and I count that as finished. It was okay. Gave me a good idea of a lot of the ideas and arguments in the field.

[Ben Holloway · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are two advantages this book has over most collections of essays. First, the debate formula allows the reader to hear both sides and hear their responses to one another. Authors don't just submit their essays but are forced to defend their arguments against a worthy opponent. Second, whoever did the pairing did a great job - the match up between Alston and Fales is especially good.

There is a more recent version of the formula by Routledge ('Arguing over Religion') but this one still packs a good punch.

[Jeffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good collection of essays in the philosophy of religion.