Paul Copan

Atheist Michael Martin’s book ’Atheism, Morality, and Meaning’ attempts to defend the possibility of a naturalistic basis for morality and meaning; God (particularly the Christian God) is unnecessary to ground meaning, ethics, rights, moral obligation and motivation. Martin’s flawed arguments rely heavily on epistemological criteria rather than on (the far more critical) ontological grounding: why think personhood, obligation, and objective moral values should emerge from mindless, impersonal valueless processes? Martin’s arguments regarding Christian ethics, salvation, and atonement are problematic in various ways. A biblical ethic offers rich resources for human rights and responsibility and can readily withstand Martin’s criticisms.

The new atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) level arguments against Old Testament morality as primitive and barbaric, presumably undercutting belief in the biblical God (Yahweh). Yet the Old Testament presents creational moral ideals in Genesis 1–2. Because of Israel’s embeddedness in the ancient Near East’s harsh, morally-problematic social milieu, Old Testament legislation is in places still morally inferior, though offering dramatic, incremental improvements upon such conditions. Mosaic Law attempts to regulate and limit tolerated structures (warfare, polygamy, patriarchalism, slavery), permitting various social structures because of human hardheartedness. Though falling short of the divine ideal, Mosaic laws often point to it.

The increased terrorist threat troubles all right-thinking persons. Terrorism also raises particular theological and ethical questions for Christians. Is the use of force ever permissible? Is there a difference between the individual Christian’s response to personal enemies and the Christian serving in an official capacity to stop threats to a nation or society? Jesus’s commands to “turn the other cheek” and “not resist evil” are understood differently by the just warrior and pacifist camps. This article sets the stage for related articles in this issue by describing the features of “terrorism,” Christian “pacifism,” and the Christian “just war” position as well as some of the attendant tensions and challenges.

In his companion volumes by Kluwer, The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination and The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination, William Craig makes a persuasive case for the A- theory of time and against the B- theory of time. In the present volume Craig addresses the relationship of God to time. He concludes his book: “given a tensed theory of time and the attendant reality of tense and temporal becoming, the most plausible construal of divine eternity is that God is timeless sans creation and temporal since creation”.

Theologian N. T. Wright’s book Evil and the Justice of God offers a biblical response to the problem of evil without attempting to “solve” the issue, but to shed light on the problem from a Christian theological perspective. This essay affirms Wright’s approach, but notes the need for greater clarity of the ontological language related to evil. The essay also seeks further answers to questions regarding animal suffering and the fall as well as the role of force in preventing gross evils and restoring peace.

Another fine addition to the Blackwell Companions of Philosophy series has been published. I consider it a gold mine! Although it is designed to be “a guide to philosophy of religion for nonspecialists”, it will certainly engage “the specialist” as well. Quinn and Taliaferro have collected succinct essays from leading thinkers on the philosophy of religion—Ninian Smart, Scott MacDonald, Merold Westphal, Brian Hebblethwaite, Roger Trigg, Alvin Plantinga, Terence Penelhum, Paul Helm, Eleonore Stump, George Mavrodes, William Craig, Jonathan Kvanvig, Basil Mitchell—to name only some of them. Each essay—seventy-eight in all—is cross-referenced with the volume’s other essays and is followed by a modest bibliography. In the back is a fairly thorough index.

Our introduction to the special topics forum provides a brief explanation of terms central to the general epistemology of disagreement literature that has developed over the past fifteen years. We then provide an overview of each contributor’s paper with an eye toward how each one relates to and extends the discussion about the epistemology of disagreement. Papers are arranged in an effort to draw readers into the discussion as follows: applying different general theories about disagreement to religious disagreement in particular, analyzing core principles related to disagreement, and then on to specific everyday issues related to navigating religious disagreements such as conversion and tolerance. Of special interest is the possibility of prospects for reasonable religious disagreement or lack thereof.

What do Jerusalem and Athens have to do with the Mayo Clinic? Biola University professors Moreland and Rae show us the intrinsic connection between substance dualism and the ethics of personhood. Far too often, “science” or “medicine” makes pronouncements on the status of this or that individual’s personhood, and it simply has no business doing so. This, Moreland and Rae argue, is the domain of theology and philosophy—however helpful science might be in giving insight to how physical systems function. Scholar and student alike will profit from their insights, and this book would make an excellent textbook for classes in applied or medical ethics and certain metaphysics courses.