Philosophy of religion

The philosophy of religion is that branch of philosophy concerned with religion and religions. It differs from philosophical theology in that the philosophy of religion applies philosophy to religion, while theology applies philosophy to questions and problems within religion. There is considerable overlap, however, between the topics and methods of the two disciplines.

The philosophy of religion typically investigates metaphysical questions such as the nature of religion, the existence and nature of a god or gods, and the possibility of miracles, epistemological questions such as the status and nature of faith and of religious experience, questions of the possibility and nature or religious language, and ethical questions concerning the relationship between morality and a god or gods.

(In what follows, the term "god" will be used to stand for "a god or gods".)

The nature of religion

What exactly is to count as a religion and what not is an extremely difficult question, and no universally accepted answer has been given. Philosophers such as Brian Davies explicitly decline to offer a view on the matter, others merely offer a set of paradigmatic examples, and some try to offer a more conventional definition.

Metaphysics

The existence of god

Arguments for the existence of god

The main types of argument for the existence of god are:

• The ontological argument
• The design argument
• The cosmological argument
• The argument from experience
• The argument from miracles

Less common arguments include:

• The argument from morality
• The argument from consciousness

Many arguments for the existence of god have been put forward over the centuries. In most cases, the conclusion involves a specific sort of being, or a being with a specific rocirc;le, and this being is identified with the god of a particular religious tradition. Thus, for example, the conclusion of versions of the design argument typically involve the existence of one or more beings responsible either for the complexity and pattern of the world or for the ability of the world to support life such as (especially) human beings.

All but one of the arguments starts from a fact or set of facts about the world – that it is contingent, that it is non-chaotic, that it contains moral values, etc. – and argues that these are either only explicable, or are best explained, in terms of a god. The exception is the ontological argument, which attempts to show that the existence of god follows from its essence.

Arguments against the existence of god

The problem of evil

The main argument raised against the existence of a god takes the form of variations on the problem of evil. This is not strictly speaking an argument against the existence of god, as it merely makes the claim that there is an inconsistency between a set of divine attributes (usually including omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence) and the presence of imperfections (usually evil) in the world. As the concept of god is usually treated as being essentially complete and unified, hoever, for many believers to deny one of the divine attributes is to deny them all; in denying god's omnipotence, for example, one would be denying the existence of god (for nothing could be god and not omnipotent). In the same way, any argument that involved a challenge to one or more of the divine attributes could be seen as an argument against the existence of god; tradtionally, however, only the problem of evil is commonly treated in this way.

The Stratonician presumption

The "Stratonician presumption" (named by English philosopher Antony Flew after Strato of Lampsacus) is a special application of Ockham's Razor. It is the claim that in one's explanation of the world, one should only invoke entities whose existence is needed for that explanation. Thus, the Stratonician atheist argues that, as the existence of a god is not needed in order to explain the existence and nature of the world, we should not believe in god.

James Rachels, in his paper "God and Human Attitudes" (Religious Studies 7, 1971, pp 325–237), offers a moral disproof of god's existence. He argues that if there were a god it would necessarily – and uniquely – be a being worthy of worship. Nothing, though, could be a being worthy of worship, because worship demands the abandonment of the worshipper's rôle as an autonomous moral agent. Therefore, there cannot be a god.

The ontological argument

In "Can God's Existence Be Disproved?" (Mind April 1948) J.N. Findlay argues that an adequate concept of god would have to involve the necessary existence of such a being (for god could not exist accidentally). Nothing can exist by logical necessity, however, as necessity is a relationship between propositions. God cannot, therefore, exist.

Further reading

Collections of readings

• John Hick [ed.] The Existence of God. London: Collier Macmillan, 1964. ISBN 0-02-085450-1
• Ann Loades and Loyal D. Rue [edd] Contemporary Classic in Philosophy of Religion. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1991. ISBN 0-8126-9169-5
• Eleonore Stump and Michael J. Murray [edd] Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. ISBN 0-631-20604-3

General and introductory monographs

• Brian Davies An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. ISBN 0-19-289235-5
• Robin Le Poidevin Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. London: Routledge 1996. ISBN 0-415-09338-4
• J.L. Mackie The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 0-19-824682-X
• Miachael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-19-506155-1
• Arvind Sharma The Philosophy of religion: A Buddhist Perspective. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997. ISBN019564272-4
• Charles Taliaferro Contemporary Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. ISBN 1-55786-449-7

See also

• Natural theology
• Psychology of religion
• Sociology of religion
• Theology