Understanding Soren Kierkegaard: Exploring “Concluding Unscientific Postscript” and “Thinking Christianly in an Existential Context.”
First Published in “Reviews in Religion and Theology“
The combination of these books made for an insightful study of Kierkegaard’s growth as a philosopher, his writing style, and how he has been understood by subsequent thinkers. Alastair Hannay’s introduction, and Sylvia Walsh’s astute volume, together put Kierkegaard into context as a response to State Christianity and its stagnating affect on individual religiosity, as well as to non-Christian philosophy attempting to offer a systematic rationalism that incorporated some Christian terms while emptying them of meaning. My own interest in Kierkegaard was increased and deepened as I came to understand more of his intellectual and personal development as well as the challenges to which he was attempting to respond. For instance, it was helpful to see that the ‘leap of faith’ for which Kierkegaard is so well known has been misunderstood and misused by many subsequent thinkers.
Moral Objectivity and Responsibility in Ethics: A Socratic Response to Hume’s Legacy in the 20th Century
First Published in The Heythrop Jounral 2010
Current debate in metaethics includes the question of objectivity. What does it mean for a moral prescription to be objective? It is easy to see how matters of fact are objective, and it is also easy to see how matters of taste are subjective. But what about matters of morality? Given the diversity in moral beliefs and practices it appears these cannot be matters of fact. Are they thus matters of taste? If so, we are left with the unlivable conclusion that all moral prescriptions are beyond rational scrutiny. David Hume expressed these problems in a way that continues to be influential today: ‘Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowled’d lesser good to my greater’ (Hume, 2003: 2.III.ii). Resolving problems about moral objectivity is further complicated by the philosophical presuppositions of analytic philosophy that have dominated the 20th century, initiated in the work of G.E. Moore, and promulgated in theories such as logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy. Contemporary thinkers from both the cognitivist and the non-cognitivist camps have tried to demonstrate that moral claims are objective in the sense of being subject independent. By considering contemporary appeals to the ideally rational self to establish objectivity, and objections to rationality as a ground for objectivity, it will be argued that objectivity can be grounded in the good which in turn is grounded in human nature. This approach can be found in the Socratic denial of knowingly doing evil, and out of this a foundation for moral objectivity can be developed that does not require an appeal to the individual’s mental state and which preserves individual responsibility for knowing the good.
Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments
First Published: Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments, C. Stephen Evans, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010 (ISBN: 978-0199217168), x + 207 pp., Hb $85.00
There are many reasons to recommend C. Stephen Evans’ new book Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments. It is accessible and open in its style, and deals skillfully with what I consider to be the most important subject we can study: our ability to know God. Indeed, one of the purposes of his book is to argue for the value of natural theology and for its place in philosophical, theological, and apologetic studies. The book can be read with profit by a wide audience, from undergraduate and graduate students to the interested general public. The chapters on the specific forms of theistic arguments serve as helpful introductions and surveys of these arguments and I plan on having my students read them. Evans also wrestles through important epistemological problems, advocating an approach traceable to Thomas Reid, and seeks to reconcile otherwise divergent Reformed and Evidentialist schools of apologetics. I found this an engaging and stimulating work that will benefit both my teaching and my research. However, I do want to argue that we must do more than simply find room for natural theology, or argue that it is possible, and instead demonstrate why it is necessary for Christianity.
Without Purpose: Modernity And The Loss Of Final Causes
First Published: The Heythrop Journal 2010
Phenomenologically, boredom is described as a lack of interest that results in a lack of motivation.1 When questioned about this lack of interest, the bored person often asserts that the given activity or object of boredom has no purpose, it does not result in happiness, or contentment, or eudemonia.2 This is even true when the object of boredom is something that the bored person also maintains to be very important, such as religious observances, education, or discipline of various kinds. Boredom in this sense can be localized, and the person’s life more generally is not ‘boring’ because the person can divert their attention and activity to objects of interest. But what happens if life itself is perceived to be boring and without interest? Here I will argue that this will be the case when life is believed to be without any purpose. This lack of purpose filters down to the various activities of life, which are perceived to be meaningless.
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland
Originally Published: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell,
J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig begin their introduction to ‘The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology’ by arguing that the decline of positivism in the twentieth century has made room for studies in metaphysics and philosophy of religion. Indeed, they quote Quentin Smith from the secular journal Philo as lamenting the fact that philosophy departments are increasingly including theistic perspectives.
Kierkegaard: Thinking Christianly in an Existential Context
First Published: Kierkegaard: Thinking Christianly in an Existential Context, Sylvia Walsh, Oxford University Press, 2009 (ISBN 978-0-19-920836-4), viii + 232 pp., pb $35.
The combination of these books made for an insightful study of Kierkegaard’s growth as a philosopher, his writing style, and how he has been understood by subsequent thinkers. Alastair Hannay’s introduction, and Sylvia Walsh’s astute volume, together put Kierkegaard into context as a response to State Christianity and its stagnating affect on individual religiosity, as well as to non-Christian philosophy attempting to offer a systematic rationalism that incorporated some Christian terms while emptying them of meaning. My own interest in Kierkegaard was increased and deepened as I came to understand more of his intellectual and personal development as well as the challenges to which he was attempting to respond. For instance, it was helpful to see that the ‘leap of faith’ for which Kierkegaard is so well known has been misunderstood and misused by many subsequent thinkers.
A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards
First Published: A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards, George Marsden, Eerdmans Publishing, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-8028-0220-0), vi + 152 pp., pb $15.00
Individually, these books are an informative look at two influential thinkers in American religion. Together, they serve as bookends to a period of American history in which Evangelicalism emphasized a particular perspective of soteriology that minimizes the intellect. What makes this such an interesting study is that both Edwards and Schaeffer made significant use of the intellect as opposed to much of what goes on between their times. In some sense, Jonathan Edwards set the standard for American intellectual religiosity so that much of what comes later is compared back to him on that plane. On the other hand, Schaeffer is credited as reinvigorating the life of the intellect among Evangelicals, and many of the Christian scholars who work in America in the decades after Schaeffer trace their own motivation to his work. This is revelatory of how Evangelical American’s understand the ‘intellect’, both those who emphasize it and those who downplay it.
The Presuppositions of Religious Pluralism and the Need for Natural Theology
First Published: The Presuppositions of Religious Pluralism and the Need for Natural Theology # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008 Although the idea of pluralism that he presented was…
Can Philosophy of Religion Move Beyond Kantian Skepticism?
Can Philosophy of Religion Move Beyond Kantian Skepticism? Reviews in Religion and Theology, 14:2 (2007) © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford…
Charles Lyell, Uniformitarianism
First Published: © 2007 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon. ISSN 0591-2385
Astract. I examine the development of Charles Lyell’s principle of uniformity and its influence on the development of modern geology and biology and argue that distinguishing between philosophical starting points and empirical findings is essential for clarity in the discussion between science and religion. First, I explore Lyell’s arguments against catastrophism and how these were both empirically and religiously motivated. I then consider how David Hume’s empiricism, theory of causation, and rejection of miracles influenced Lyell. Using these insights, Lyell formulated his principle of uniformity, which he believed was based on current empirical findings, and rejected explanatory hypotheses that used the biblical Flood or other catastrophist accounts as violations of uniform causation and introductions of theological concepts into empirical science. I next examine the influence of Lyell’s principle on Charles Darwin. Although Lyell opposed Darwinism for most of his life, Darwin relied heavily on Lyell, as is evidenced by references throughout The Origin of Species. I contend that the most important aspect of Lyell’s principle for Darwin is that it makes natural evil (the struggle for survival) a process that has always been occurring rather than something introduced after the Fall as recorded in Genesis. Finally, I discuss the role that uniformity plays for Lyell, Darwin, and modern science as an interpretive principle rather than as an inference from empirical data, and I conclude by noting that keeping the distinction in mind between interpretive principles and empirical findings will help clarify debates between science and religion.