On another occassion, we noted Andrew Bailey's wonderful online resources for papers by Peter van Inwagen and John Martin Fischer. He has now kindly provided a similar online resource for papers by Alvin Plantinga. Thanks, Andrew!
Here's the blurb: Innovative handbook mapping the current and ongoing revival of interest in this cross disciplinary area of studyClear volume structure with thirty-eight
original essays ordered into five thematic sections, engaging
historical, theological, philosophical, scientific, and
on natural theologyRefuses easy definitions of the scope of natural theology, and encompasses the breadth of debate over the issues involvedThe Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology
is the first collection to consider the full breadth of natural
theology from both historical and contemporary perspectives and to bring
together leading scholars to offer accessible high-level accounts of
the major themes. The volume embodies and develops the recent revival of
interest in natural theology as a topic of serious critical engagement.
Frequently misunderstood or polemicized, natural theology is an
under-studied yet persistent and pervasive presence throughout th…
This provocative book addresses one of the most enduring puzzles in
political philosophy and constitutional theory--why is religion singled
out for preferential treatment in both law and public discourse? Why,
for example, can a religious soup kitchen get an exemption from zoning
laws in order to expand its facilities to better serve the needy, while a
secular soup kitchen with the same goal cannot? Why is a Sikh boy
permitted to wear his ceremonial dagger to school while any other boy
could be expelled for packing a knife? Why are religious obligations
that conflict with the law accorded special toleration while other
obligations of conscience are not?
In Why Tolerate Religion?,
Brian Leiter argues that the reasons have nothing to do with religion,
and that Western democracies are wrong to single out religious liberty
for special legal protections. He offers …
Stephen Law has kindly posted his recent paper, "Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus", Faith & Philosophy 28:2 (April 2011), pp. 129-151. Here's the abstract:
The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence
sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many
believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish
Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In
particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which
various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are
supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to
place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima
facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a
principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the
large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in
the New Testament documents, we should, in…
This looks like it might well be a moral argument for theism worth reading, as it includes a serious attempt to address the most plausible contemporary secular accounts of ethics. At least in this regard, it looks to follow in the footsteps of Adams in his Finite and Infinite Goods.
Here's the blurb: Original work at the intersection of philosophy of religion and ethical theory
A distinctive argument for theismEngages with a wide range of leading secular philosophersFrom Morality to Metaphysics
offers an argument for the existence of God, based on our most
fundamental moral beliefs. Angus Ritchie engages with a range of the
most significant religious moral philosophers of our time, and argues
that they all face a common difficulty which only theism can overcome.
book begins with a defence of the 'deliberative indispensability' of
moral realism, arguing that the practical deliberation human beings
engage in on a daily basis only makes sense if they take the…
One has, I think, to go through a conceptual turn-around
in general ontology
somewhat like the one Newton executed for physics. Aristotelian physics
made motion problematic and rest unproblematic. The question then was:
there motion (here, or there, or at all) rather than rest? Newton saw
motion was no more problematic than rest. What had to be explained was change:
from motion to rest, or conversely. Similarly, in general ontology one has to
understand that existence is, in general, no more problematic than
non-existence. Existence isn't somehow "harder" or inherently less
likely than non-existence.
-Dallas Willard, "Language, Being, God, and the Three Stages of Theistic Evidence", in Moreland, J.P. and Kai Neilsen, Does God Exist? The Great Debate (Prometheus, 1993).
Call for Submissions for the 2011 Excellence in Philosophy of Religion Prize The 2011 Excellence in Philosophy of
Religion Prize attempts to identify the three best papers published in
2011 in the areas of philosophy of religion or philosophical theology. A
panel of three expert reviewers will select
three winners. Each winner will receive an award of $2,000. Papers should have a date of
publication of 2011. (If the actual paper will not appear until 2012,
that is acceptable, as long as the official publication date of the
journal issue or book is 2011.) Preference will be given
to papers that are published in academic forums (e.g., peer-reviewed
journals and edited volumes). Entries will be judged on quality of
argumentation, clarity of exposition, the significance of the positions
argued for, and the degree to which the paper advances
the discussion on the topic in question. Entries are limited to one per
person. Self-nominations are encouraged. Nominations of a paper by
A. There is at least one metaphysically possible world at which every single person God could've created suffers from transworld depravity (TWD).
B. How could that be?
A. We can support the thesis as follows: (1) Each creaturely essence is transworld depraved at some possible world or other. Therefore, (2) there's bound to be one possible world at which every creaturely essence is transworld depraved.
B. Why think that? First, the notion of transworld depravity relies on the notion of counterfactuals of creaturely (libertarian) freedom (CCFs). But there are powerful reasons to think that the notion of a CCF is incoherent.
Second, (1) would entail that no possible creature is essentially morally perfect. But if you allow that a god could be essentially morally perfect, then there is pressure on the proponent of the free will defense to give a principled basis for why a created being cannot be essentially morally perfect as well.