Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. William Hasker. Bruce Reichenbach. David Basinger. What is the status of belief in God? Must a rational case be made or can such belief be properly basic? Is it possible to reconcile the concept of a good God with evil and suffering? In light of great differences among religions, can only one religion be true? The most comprehensive work of its kind, Reason and Religious Belief, now in its third edition, explores these an What is the status of belief in God? The most comprehensive work of its kind, Reason and Religious Belief, now in its third edition, explores these and other perennial questions in the philosophy of religion.
Drawing from the best in both classical and contemporary discussions, the authors examine religious experience, faith and reason, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, Reformed epistemology, miracles, and religious language. They also treat subjects not often included in competing texts, such as process theism, religious pluralism, religion and science, and the relationship between religion and morality. The third edition retains the engaging style and thorough coverage of previous editions and also takes into account the latest contributions in the field by such thinkers as Plantinga, Alston, Martin, Murphy, Dembski, M.
Adams, and Swinburne. Integrating a variety of perspectives, it adds a chapter on the openness of God debate, several sections on feminist concerns, and frequent comparisons of how Eastern religions compare with Western theism. Get A Copy. Paperback , Third Edition , pages. More Details Original Title. Other Editions 7. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Reason and Religious Belief , please sign up.
Be the first to ask a question about Reason and Religious Belief. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews.
Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. By far the best non-elementary introduction that is ever written about philosophy of religion in the analytic tradition. Philosophical Review McGinn, C. Inquiry Meister, Chad. Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Abingdon: Routledge. Meister, Chad ed. The Philosophy of Religion Reader. Miller, Kenneth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joad, C. Guide to the Philosophy of Morals and Politics. London: Victor Gollancz.
Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Ratzsch, Del. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Swinburne, Richard. Is there a God?
Yaran, Cafer S. Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. Philosophy of Religion: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. New York: Hawthorn Books. Boyer, Pascal. New York: Basic Books. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Bantam Press. Drange, Theodore. Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. I think that the discussions of arguments for the existence of God in that essay are quite unsatisfactory. There are many arguments and some are very complicated.
I would have been inclined, if I were Russell, either not to talk about the arguments at all, or to go about it in a rather different way. Russell gives an argument where he says if you suppose that the universe needs a cause and you postulate God, then why do you not need to postulate a cause for God as well? The version that Russell gives of that argument is still somewhat unsatisfactory. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
To what extent do you think people can be rationally persuaded to —or dissuaded from — belief in God? People can certainly change their minds. There are very well-informed philosophers on both sides of the fence still.
If there were these compelling arguments, that would be extremely hard to explain. You can be well informed and have thought about it a lot. Do you think that the argument could be run in the opposite way, where you say that a lot of people take atheism to be their default position without consciously entertaining these abstract questions? I think that would have to be right. For some things there is explicit instruction, but lots of them you pick them up by making inferences from what your parents taught you about and the kind of behaviour that your parents — and later on, your kids — engage in.
I certainly accept those points.
Historical Introduction to Philosophy/Faith and Reason
It helps to make it understandable why there were no Christians in China three thousand years ago. After I finished high school, I enrolled in a medical degree at Melbourne. I did one year of the medical degree, spending a lot of my time writing philosophy, and I figured I was probably in the wrong place.
So, I swapped to doing an undergraduate in philosophy. For its size, it gives you the best coverage of a very wide range of important arguments on both sides of the debate about the existence of God. It packages it all up in a way that many atheists will find quite convincing. Mackie had spent many years thinking about these questions. The primary focus is arguments about the existence of God. We also get some discussion of theories of religion, including debunking theories of religion that seek to explain why it is that people have the religious beliefs that they do even though those beliefs have no connection to a reality that corresponds to them.
This came out in the s, just after Mackie died. What tends to happen is that you get repackaged versions of arguments that came before, but are improved in various ways.
Philosophy of religion
Sometimes they have new twists to them that are quite hard to unpack and work out what to say in response. There might be something about fine-tuning, but if there is then it will be from the very early days of fine-tuning design arguments.
But it depends. There are people who think that there are arguments from things like the existence of abstract objects to the existence to God. Tell me about this one. This is a book I only learnt about fairly recently. One of the things I wanted to do was to do some pen portraits of atheists for one of the chapters on the history of atheism. Jean Meslier — was a Catholic priest in a small, quite isolated village. He lived his whole life as a Catholic priest. He was in some respects slightly idiosyncratic, but never to the extent that any of his superiors thought that it warranted serious attention.
He did the kind of things that you might expect a priest to do: for example, when he had spare cash at the end of each financial year, he would give it away to his parishioners. There were many things that made it hard to guess that he was leading a kind of double life. It turns out that the ideas he was developing were atheism, materialism, a kind of political internationalism, and a kind of hedonism.
- The Philosophy of Religion | Reading Religion.
- The Ceremonial City?
- Studies in Military Geography and Geology.
- Commodities Demystified.
The whole book is a mess. Pick any kind of line of attack that the New Atheists have made on religion and you can find it there in Meslier.
An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.
And over the next sixty years, there were a number of publications that drew on his work. But Voltaire did pick out the good parts in the arguments that Meslier had that could be used to support deism. Across the eighteenth century, Meslier was enormously influential. The first English translation only just appeared a couple of years ago. This is an incredibly subversive document, written by an atheist priest—which sounds like an oxymoron.
How ferocious is his criticism? And why do you think he remained working as a priest if he held these beliefs? The criticism is extremely ferocious. He attacked the church on many different fronts. Why did he remain a priest? I think because he quite liked the life that he was living. It was pretty comfortable, and he was quite happy working in the service of his parishioners. I have no idea how he coped with preaching and that side of things during the last part of his life.