1
Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

What is Philosophy of Religion?

Philosophy of religion is just thinking philosophically about topics that come up when the subject is religion. Thinking philosophically involves reflecting critically about a set of issues, with the aim of figuring out what to believe about those issues. Sometimes such reflection is simply about what we already believe. But open-minded inquiry requires reflecting, as well, on what others have thought, and it can involve examining proposals that no one else has articulated. One aspect of this kind of critical reflection may be illustrated by an anecdote about the comic actor, W. C. Fields (1880-1946), famous for playing somewhat mean-spirited and dissolute characters in what was apparently not casting against type. Near the end of his life, Fields was observed by a friend to be reading the Bible. Surprised, since Fields was not known to be at all religious, the friend asked, "What are you doing?" Field's reply, delivered in his characteristic snarl was, "Lookin' for loopholes, lookin' for loopholes."

Philosophers look for loopholes. They take details seriously, they subject claims to close scrutiny, and they try to find what's wrong with a given view. If the loophole they find is a (possibly made-up) case in which some general claim fails to hold, they have discovered a counterexample. Finding fault isn't the only thing philosophers do, however. For one thing, it's often not worth the trouble to look for loopholes to a claim that's too vague or too carelessly stated to tell exactly what it says. So another project in which philosophers engage is that of producing a careful and clear statement of the claim or thesis under consideration. This has the benefit of providing a clear target for scrutiny. But the very process of trying come up with a precise statement of a position often results in the discovery of complications or of needed distinctions that weren't apparent prior to attempting to state the position carefully. What emerges in this case is a deeper understanding of the complexity of the issues involved.

Another way in which philosophers try to introduce clarity before looking for loopholes is by carefully separating someone's reasons for holding a position from the position or thesis itself. Often the best way to do this is by constructing an argument for the thesis in question, with the reasons then being seen as the premisses of this argument.1 We'll look more closely at arguments later in this chapter. For now let's simply observe that disentangling a thesis from reasons for it, or a conclusion from the premisses that are supposed to support it, gives us not only a clearer target to aim at but also opens up more possibilities for loopholes. As we'll see more precisely below, reasons can fail to be good reasons either by not being true or by failing to provide the right kind of support for the claim for which they are advanced. If we're serious about identifying a loophole in this kind of reasoning, we'll want to be able to say accurately what it is.

Finally, philosophers don't only set up targets for demolition. When a loophole is found, a constructive project is to attempt to fill it or to figure out a way to avoid the problem it has exposed. Perhaps a modest revision will escape the objection, or perhaps it would be better to look in a different direction altogether. Of course, any new proposal should be subjected to the same scrutiny that uncovered a flaw in the original proposal, and perhaps the new proposal will be found to have defects of its own. The process of looking for loopholes can have the felicitous outcome of leading to an improved formulation of a theory or claim, but even if it doesn't, it will lead to a greater understanding of what the issues are.

We've discussed in very general terms what it is to think philosophically, but we haven't looked at the second part of our subject: what is it to think philosophically about religion? One answer, in fact a pretty good answer, is that it is to employ the critical approach we have been discussing in the investigation of any topic that comes up when the subject is religion. As a matter of fact, philosophers of religion have found many such topics worth discussing. Some matters that we won't examine in this book include prayer, ritual, the nature of a saint, and defining religion, to mention just a few.

Instead, we'll take a cue from the fact that the major religions in the west - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - are all theistic religions, or varieties of theism. Richard Swinburne, the former Nolloth Professor of the Christian Religion at Oxford University, has described theism as the claim that there is someone "without a body (i.e. a spirit) who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe" (Swinburne, 1993, p. 1). In other words, theism is the claim that there is a God, that God exists. Focusing our inquiry on this claim, so central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, will allow us to organize our critical thinking on issues suggested by it. For example, does God exist? Can it be proven that there is a God? Or, can it be proven that there is no God? What does it mean to say that someone is "able to do anything"? Is it possible for there to be an omnipotent being? What is involved in someone who "knows everything"? If God is omniscient, does his knowledge extend to the future? And, if it does, is that compatible with human beings acting freely? If God is "the creator and sustainer of the universe," is he able to interfere with it? Are miracles possible, and might it be rational to think that miracles have occurred? Finally, if no proof can be found of God's existence, could it nevertheless be reasonable to believe in his existence? Is it always wrong to believe something without good evidence in its favor? How are faith and reason related?2

Arguments and Proving God's Existence

Since our first topic is the attempt to prove that God exists, the remainder of this chapter will discuss some key concepts that will prove helpful in pursuing this topic. Although our discussion will be framed in terms of proving the existence of God, the concepts and ideas we'll introduce here will also apply to the attempt to prove God's nonexistence, as well as the attempt to establish anything on any of the topics we will take up in the course of this book.

A proof of God's existence might be thought to give a really good reason to believe that God exists. I suggested above that we could distinguish a thesis from reasons for believing that thesis by construing the reasons as the premisses of an argument that has that thesis as a conclusion. Accordingly, we could start with the idea that a proof of God's existence is an argument that has the proposition that God exists as its conclusion, where an argument is simply a list of sentences or propositions, one of which is designated as the conclusion.

Of course, not just any argument that has God exists as its conclusion would be a good argument. For starters, we should want the conclusion to follow from the premisses. It's not easy to say exactly what "follows from" amounts to. Fortunately, there is a relatively clear concept that we can employ instead, namely, that of an argument being valid, where that term is defined as follows:

(D1) An argument is valid?=?df it is not possible for the premisses of the argument to be true and the conclusion false.3

We can also introduce a term to describe an argument that is not valid, namely,

(D2) An argument is invalid?=?df it is not valid.

An argument will be invalid just in case it fails to satisfy the definition of being valid, that is, just in case it is possible for its premisses to be true and conclusion false. We can use the more precise term "valid" to give an account of the informal concept of a conclusion "following from" some premisses as follows: a conclusion follows from a set of premisses if and only if the argument with those premisses and that conclusion is valid.

We can gain a better understanding of validity by considering some examples of arguments.

Example 1:

• (1) Every human being is mortal.
• (2) Socrates is a human being.
• ? (3) Socrates is mortal. (1) (2)

The symbol "?" in front of line (3) abbreviates the word "therefore." Thus, (3) is a conclusion, and the numbers in parentheses at the end of it indicate that it is a conclusion from the premisses, lines (1) and (2). This argument is valid. It satisfies the definition of validity given in (D1) because it is not possible for its premisses to be true and conclusion false. Here is another example:

Example 2:

• (1) If you study hard, you will pass your philosophy course.
• (2) You study hard.
• ? (3) You will pass your philosophy course. (1) (2)

This argument has a different form, but it, too, is valid. There is no way the premisses could be true but...