Recently in Books of Interest Category

Plantinga gives three main arguments against naturalism in the opening chapter of Knowledge of God. These are:

1. naturalism cannot accommodate the idea of proper function (and since warrant essentially involves proper function, if naturalism were true then no one would have knowledge),


2. naturalism leads directly to Humean skepticism, the condition in which you have a defeater for whatever you believe and cannot sensibly trust your cognitive faculties, and


3. naturalism cannot accommodate belief; if naturalism were true, no one would believe anything (19).
   

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews today published William Rowe's review of Plantinga & Tooley's Knowledge of God. A remarkably nice bit of timing on the part of NDPR!

Warning! Shameless plug to follow...

In the last few years I've looked at numerous syllabi used in philosophy of religion courses. Besides the usual caveats, grading scales, and policies, these syllabi often make nods towards the objective of thinking philosophically about religion. However, 'religion' is, in almost all cases, largely restricted to western theism. One of the challenges of breaking out of this mold is that most introductory textbooks and readers are geared towards philosophy of religion in the western context. Up until now it has been difficult to know where to start if you wanted to include more non-Western sources. Enter Andrew Eshleman's edit volume Readings in the Philosophy of Religion: East Meets West from Blackwell. The volume has a nice selection of readings from names that we've all come to know like Swinburne, Plantinga, Mackie, Alston, Rowe, Hick, Craig, Paley, and more. Interspersed throughout each section though are selections from Hindu, Daoist, Confucian, and Buddhist, thinkers. Frankly this is a book that has probably been long overdue.

Full disclosure: Eshleman was one of my professors as an undergrad and I read drafts of the introductory material for the book. However, I'd have plugged the book in any case because such a volume deserves to be brought to broader attention.

I just received a notice from Blackwell about the new book in the Great Debates series featuring a debate between Alvin Plantinga and Michael Tooley on Knowledge of God. I noticed that one chapter by Plantinga is called "Can Robots Think? A Reply to Tooley's Second Statement."

I have two questions: (1) Can someone tell me what Plantinga's position on artificial thinking is? (2) Can someone give me any good reason why robots will not be able to think in the future?

Theists in general are quite hostile to the possibility of genuine artificial intelligence, but I have yet to hear a good reason why. Suppose that substance dualism is true. This means that you and I do our thinking with a non-physical mind/soul. The fact that we do our thinking with a non-physical mind/soul doesn't show that thinking can only be done with a mind/soul. Compare: The fact that birds do their flying with feathered wings does not mean that feathered wings are required for flying. Helicopters, plants, rockets, etc. fly without feathered wings. So, I can't see why the truth of dualism would preclude AI. And I'm not sure what other good reasons there are.

James

I'm going to teach a course on Science and Religion in the fall for the first time. The course presupposes no (or very little) prior background in philosophy. I was amazed at the number of interesting books that resulted from a search on Amazon using the keywords 'science' and 'religion.' It's hard to know where to begin to sort them out. If some of you could recommend texts on science and religion that you think are excellent, I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
James Beebe

Michael Ruse (of the SEP "Creationism" ruse (no, I never get tired of saying that)) has a new book forthcoming next month on Charles Darwin.

I like to read about Darwin, I find him a very interesting character, but what will really put this book on the map for the lovers of Dawkins, Dennet, and Co. is the penultimate chapter "The Origins of Religion". A publishers squib states "Strongly supports Darwinism and fully explores modern naturalistic explanations of religion" and he somehow still has space in 352 pages to "Offer a comprehensive discussion of Darwinism and Christianity - including Creationism." Wow, it's a good thing he's "one of the leading authorities in the field." I didn't realize that Darwinism and Christianity constitute a field. Apparently being a leading authority does not distribute over conjunction. :-)~

LINK

There is an interview with Chris Hedges at Salon regarding his new book, I Don't Believe in Atheists, an attack on the political designs of the "New Atheists" such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. Just in case anyone feels that we've been remiss on our Dawkins-harping lately.

I look forward to picking up a copy of Hedges's book, although the impression I get from the interview is that it's more polemical than theoretical. Historically however, the case for toleration has always had an integral polemical component as well.

Trenton Merricks's recent book is reviewed today at Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. It will be of interest to Prosblogion readers not just because Trenton is a sometime philosopher of religion and that the review by Ben Caplan thanks our own Tim Pawl, but also because it discusses issues in ontology such as presentism, eternalism, endurantism, truthmakers for subjunctive conditionals, etc. that are relevant to issues in the philosophy of religion and philosophical theology such as the nature of God, freedom and foreknowledge, molinism in particular, and others.

Trenton is one of my very most favorite authors and I hope to get to teach this book soon.

There was a bit of heated (well, at least luke-warm) controversy a few posts below about the status of a November NYT article about Anthony Flew's coming to be a theist. That article cast aspersions on the genuineness of that change and even made claims of manipulation not in accordance with the evidence. One specific charge had to do with Flew's failing memory and the reality of his association with Brian Leftow and Gary Habermas. I am privileged to have known both these guys for years and they were kind enough to make statements on that article to help set the record straight. I'll post them below the fold. [Interested readers can use the search function on the side bar to see an interview I did with Brian last year.]

Paul Draper's edited E-Book God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence continues to deliver with substantial updates. The core arguments are probably familiar to most Prosblogion readers, but they provide a nice introduction to the newly initiated.

Section three, Science and the Cosmos, offers contributions from Quentin Smith, Robin Collins, and Draper himself. Collins paper opens on in a curious fashion.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies writes that, when looking at the overall structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (1988, p. 203). I agree. And the famous atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, has also come to agree, citing the appearance of cosmic design as the main reason for his conversion to belief in some sort of intelligent designer.

I'm always wary of making appeals of this kind, but if the New York Times is to be believed, on might worry about marshaling Flew's reported conversion in support of your argument.

Section four, Faith and Uncertainty, features an exchange between John Schellenberg and Jeffrey Jordan. Jordan in replying to Schellenberg makes one point the bears repeating.

"John Schellenberg has presented an argument noteworthy in several respects. One interesting respect is that his "divine hiddenness" argument is a philosophically interesting innovation in a debate that has raged for millennia. Innovation in philosophy, especially an interesting innovation, is not an easy task, but Professor Schellenberg has accomplished it."

There is still time for you to weigh in on the debate with your questions for the various contributors.

One of the assignments I give to my philosophy of religion course is to have students write a paper reflecting on the impact of philosophy on their own religious beliefs.  As preparation for this paper, I have them read a number of select autobiographies from God and Philosophers and Philosophers who Believe.  This term, I've added a number of chapters from the recently published Philosophers without Gods (this is the volume that has the wonderful paper by the late David Lewis, "Divine Evil," that Michael has mentioned on his blog). 

While at the Eastern APA, I picked up Faith and the Life of the Intellect, which is in the same vein, but with contributions by Catholic philosophers working primarily in the Continental tradition.  My favorite line in the volume comes from Ralph McInerny:

"It matters who you hang out with philosophically" (239).

But I'm slightly puzzled by a quotation from the chapter by Jude Dougherty:

"Luther had little regard for philosophy.  Sworn enemy of Scholasticism, he once remarked that God had sent Aristotle as a punishment for the sins of mankind" (172).

Does anyone know where in Luther's corpus this comment is found?

Erik Wielenberg's excellent new book God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell is now out.  This is a rare gem.  I read most of this in MS form and I can't say enough good things about it.  Erik is that rare bird who--though he may have an axe to grind, we all do--does not just go about chopping people to bits.  This is not a polemic, it's an exploration and a surprising one at that. 

You come out of the study with a greater appreciation for all three thinkers and learn something about just about every area of philosophy.  I know blurbs often say that a book is "must reading" but for readers of Prosblogion this is surely more than a cliche.

This book is both insightful and *honorable* in the way he gives Lewis his due and really tries to put these guys into conversation together.  (Russell was in America for most of Lewis's active apologetics career I think.)

I haven't read the published version yet and obviously Erik and I didn't see eye-to-eye on everything, but this is a fantastic book which will reward a careful read for any level of reader.  We've probably wasted too much bloggage on the likes of Dennett and Dawkins.  All three of Lewis, Hume, and Russell could be full of bluster at times, but their arguments need to be engaged.  This book does that.

Available at Amazon.com here (this link helps offset the (growing) costs of running Prosblogion).