Faith and Philosophy 26, no. 1 (January 2009)
“As far as I know, this book is the all-time most sophisticated, well developed, and plausible defense of the idea that Christians may rationally believe and know apparently contradictory doctrines.” So begins a review of James Anderson’s Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status (Paternoster, 2007). Although the reviewer sees no future in Anderson’s “mysterian defense of Christian belief” in the Trinity and Incarnation, for example (which Anderson deems paradoxes), “others will take it as presenting an exciting, well-motivated, and genuinely different apologetic option.” Anderson “relentlessly dismisses recent attempts to render these doctrines seemingly consistent, by the likes of Barth, Rahner, Cornelius Plantinga, Swinburne, Brown, Martinich, Rea, Brower, Feenstra, Davis, and Morris.” Anderson believes such efforts to avoid both paradox and heterodoxy can’t help failing on either count or even both.
DePauw U’s Erik Wielenberg writes “In Defense of Non-natural, Non-theistic Moral Realism,” in which he argues “that there are sui generis objective ethical facts that do not reduce to natural or supernatural facts.” And, “objective morality does not require an external foundation of any kind.” He defends this against objections posed by William Wainwright, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland. Other articles deal with Kant’s religious argument for the existence of God, with “The Sense of Deity and Begging the Question with Ontological and Cosmological Arguments,” and one on Kierkegaard and natural reason, and one on inductive evidence.
Faith and Philosophy 26, no. 2 (April 2009)
“The Vice of Pride” by Baylor’s Robert C. Roberts clarifies “pride by distinguishing it from emotions that are symptomatic of it and from virtuous dispositions that go by the same name, [and also] by identifying the disposition (humility) that is its virtue-counterpart, and by distinguishing” the “kinds” of pride.
In “A Leftovian Trinity” William Hasker argues that Brian Leftow’s proposed “Latin” doctrine of the Trinity—according to which “the Father just is God” and so are the Son and Spirit—is unorthodox because it renders the three identical. A “minor modification would enable Leftow to avoid this untoward consequence.” But even then his doctrine would “retain a strongly modalistic flavor” by implying, e.g., that Jesus’ prayers are instances of God-as-Son addressing himself, i.e. God-as-Father. Hasker’s article begins: “The past half-century has seen a revival and outpouring of theological work on the doctrine of the Trinity that may be unmatched since the early centuries of Christianity.”
“Perhaps the most interesting and fruitful development in recent epistemology has been the renewal of interest in the intellectual virtues.” So begins a review of Intellectual Virtues: an Essay in Regulative Epistemology, by Robert C. Roberts and W. Jay Wood (Oxford: Clarendon, 2007). The reviewer is St. Olaf College’s Anthony Rudd. Because other books have tended to address general issues that this new work treats in Part One (the importance of the intellectual virtues, “their relation to the goods of intellectual inquiry,” etc.), it is Part Two that makes this book distinctive, dealing with the specific virtues themselves: Love of Knowledge, Firmness, Courage and Caution, Humility, Generosity, etc. And what the authors have to say is “fascinating, thought-provoking, and very readable.” The reviewer says that their “critique of traditional epistemology” and “their call for a reorientation of the discipline towards the regulative and the humanly relevant is enormously valuable.” Other reviewed books deal with Pascal’s wager, immortality, the liberal conscience, John Locke (a new biography), the birth of secular ethics, and The Meaning of Theism.
Recent Comments