Charles Taliaferro

This chapter discusses the two kinds of philosophical critiques of natural theology: external and internal critiques. External critiques take aim at the whole project, objecting to the metaphysics, epistemology, or theory of values that make natural theology possible at all. Internal critiques allow that natural theology can succeed but none of its arguments are cogent or meet high philosophical standards. Among external critiques, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason seeks to undermine all metaphysics, as do contemporary forms of nonrealism. The chapter demonstrates that external philosophical critiques of natural theology have been less than successful, and also considers four internal critiques: the incoherence of theism, the poverty of theism, Humean uniqueness, and Kantian disappointment.

There is much to appreciate in Samuel Fleischacker’s Divine Teaching and the Way of the World: A Defense of Revealed Religion. In the tradition of Tolstoy, Fleischacker argues that secular philosophy does not have the resources to provide for a meaningful life; a life of meaning is to be found principally through revealed religion. In the end, however, his concept of revelation seems very thin, ruling out even the intelligibility of experiencing God. We critically assess his atrophied concept of revelation and his views on historical truth, science, and theism.

Phenomenological realism, in the tradition of Dietrich von Hildebrand, is advanced as a promising methodology for a theistic philosophy of divine and human agency. Phenomenological realism is defended in contrast to the practice of historicalism -- the view that a philosophy of mind and God should always be done as part of a thoroughgoing history of philosophy, e.g. the use of examples in analytic theology should be subordinated to engaging the work of Kant and other great philosophers. The criticism of theism based on forms of naturalism that give exclusive authority to the physical sciences is criticized from a phenomenological, realist perspective.

Philosophical assessments of different religious traditions face two substantial objections, among others. According to one, the very nature of religious traditions as embedded forms of life prevents this philosophical undertaking. According to the other, a philosophical inventory is possible but under its guise no religious tradition will be left standing. I reply to both and then comment on whether there is (or can be) an ideal observation post from which to philosophically elucidate and compare different religious beliefs and practices.

This book is a first-rate contribution to analytic philosophy of religion. The divine attributes that are the focus of this analytic enterprise are constitutive of theism. They include substantiality, incorporeality, necessary existence, eternality, omniscience, perfect virtue, moral admirability, and omnipotence. Hoffman and Rosenkrantz limit themselves to a conceptual goal; they argue for the coherence of theism not its truth. The book contains a useful glossary and terms are introduced with care, and without unnecessary jargon. A brave hearted undergraduate could use the book with profit, and specialists will see this text as a significant contribution to the growing library of volumes on the coherence of theism. Hoffman and Rosenkrantz join the ranks of Richard Swinburne, Ed Wieringa, Richard Gale and other analytic philosophers who have published systematic work on theism’s conceptual credibility. The Divine Attributes would work well in an advanced seminar in metaphysics, should you want to devote some attention to the metaphysics of theism along side other topics.

We argue that the use of the term “supernatural” is problematic in philosophy of religion in general, and in the contribution by Thornhill-Miller and Millican in particular. We address the disturbing parallel between Hume’s case against the rationality of belief in miracles and his dismissal of reports of racial equality. We do not argue that because Hume was a racist therefore his view against miracles is faulty, but we draw attention to how Hume sets up a framework that, for similar reasons, discounts evidence of black intelligence and divine intelligence. We go on to argue against TMM’s revision of Hume on miracles. We then argue that empirical testing on the veracity of petitionary belief is impossible for there is no control case and that empirical testing can no more evaluate the evidential merits of most religious experiences than it can assess the merits of any robust philosophical position in epistemology, metaphysics, value theory, logic and mathematics. We express doubts about the integrity and scope of how one might enjoy the good of religion without belief. In a final section we offer a defense of the rationality of believing in specific religious traditions based on religious experience along with what we refer to as sufficient philosophical reasoning.