An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

by Brian Davies

The third edition of An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion provides a critical examination of some fundamental questions posed by religious What does belief in God amount to? Can God's existence be proved? Is there life after death?

Brian Davies considers these questions and many others, sometimes offering provocative answers of his own, but more often giving readers room to each independent conclusions. He explains how a range of thinkers have approached the subject -- including Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, and
Kant -- and also discusses how contemporary author now engage with the issues involved. Completely revised to cover the latest developments in the field, the new edition of this established textbook will prove the ideal introduction for all students of the philosophy of religion.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Spirituality, School, Christianity

344 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1982

About the author

Brian Davies is a Dominican friar and Professor of Philosophy at Fordham University, New York. He has published extensively on the thought of St Thomas Aquinas.

Reviews

[Ali Reda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Religion in Analytic philosophy or from an analytical point of view. In my opinion, It is one of the best books to cover this area. The book covers the topics: Concepts of God, Philosophy and Religious Belief, Cosmological Arguments, Design Arguments, Ontological Arguments, Experience and God, Talking about God, Divine Simplicity, Omnipotence and Omniscience, God and Evil, Miracles, Morality and Religion and Life after Death. The Only disadvantage that I found was in the last chapter (Life after Death) which included a discussion of the Mind-Body Problem, and I found the ideas discussed were mostly behavioristic although in the advance of functionalism, seem wrong or old dated.

[Aid · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a nice introduction to philosophy of religion, everything was very clear and easy to understand, with the exception of the chapter on the Ontological Arguments which I read twice. I most enjoyed the chapters on the Cosmological Argument and the divine attributes, the chapters on morality and miracles were boring since I'm not interested in that.

The explanation of the divide within theism between classical theists and theistic personalists was great, I found this to be very interesting.

[Molly]

yummy yummy philosophy of religion reads woooooo

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Une excellente introduction à la philosophie de la religion (la discipline qui s'intéresse aux questions sur l'existence de Dieu, ses attributs, le problème du mal, les miracles et la vie après la mort), un classique à juste titre de la part d'un philosophe catholique thomiste (qui suit la philosophie de Thomas d'Aquin). Très accessible et synthétique. Davies est très compréhensible (il donne beaucoup d'exemples et définit chaque mot compliqué) et arrive à vraiment bien résumer les différentes positions avec leurs arguments, ce qui donne des chapitres très courts. Il propose de nombreuses bibliographies : elles sont immenses (un peu décourageantes du coup) mais on y trouve vraiment de quoi approfondir le sujet qui nous intéresse particulièrement. J'ai lu la troisième édition de 2004, sachant que la quatrième vient de sortir en 2020.

Il traite énormément de sujets en allant de la définition de la religion, du lien entre notre langage humain et Dieu jusqu'à la vie après la mort et la simplicité de Dieu. Il écrit en tant que thomiste mais cela ne l'empêche pas de garder tout ce qu'il y a de bien chez des philosophes analytiques qui ne le sont pas.

Concernant ses positions :
- Sa conception de Dieu est le Dieu du théisme classique, c'est clair comme il s'affirme thomiste. Mais il reste très discret sur cela, et préfère laisser le lecteur décider par lui-même après avoir examiné les arguments des deux côtés (théisme classique et théisme personnaliste). Il accepte donc les définitions traditionnelles de l'omniscience, de l'omnipotence et de la simplicité de Dieu, qu'il ne trouve pas contradictoire contrairement à ce qu'affirment beaucoup de philosophes contemporains.
-Il accepte l'argument du kalam, de la cause première (deuxième voie de Thomas d'Aquin) mais pas l'argument de la contingence de Leibniz.
- Il trouve les arguments téléologiques (du design) plausibles, même celui de Paley, ce qui m'a beaucoup étonné ! Il répond pas mal aux objections courantes (souvent reprises de Hume) ! Le seul point regrettable, il ne traite pas l'argument de d'Aquin (5ème voie) à part alors qu'il est quand même très différent des autres.
- Il rejette l'argument ontologique d'Anselme et de Descartes, et trouve un problème dans celui de Malcolm et de Plantinga qui repose sur la prémisse "il est possible que Dieu existe", ce qui est très difficile à démontrer, à part si l'on prouve l'existence de Dieu avant, mais c'est justement ce que l'on cherche à faire !
- Selon lui, les arguments rationnels pour prouver l'existence de Dieu à partir de nos expériences personnelles (mystiques) ne sont pas convaincantes. Les rejeter comme étant des hallucinations débiles n'est pas non plus aussi facile que cela.
- Pour le lien entre Dieu et le langage, il suit largement d'Aquin en acceptant le langage analogique et en rejetant le langage équivoque et univoque. Il interagit avec les philosophes contemporains du langage comme Wittgenstein.
- Pour résoudre le problème du mal, il propose une théodicée qui affirme que comme Dieu n'est pas un agent moral comme nous, il est impossible de vouloir le juger ou de l'accuser de ne pas être bon (c'est-à-dire moralement conforme à une loi morale au-dessus de lui). Même s'il reconnaît la justesse de la théorie du plus grand bien (Dieu utilise le mal pour en faire sortir du bien, même si étant finis, nous les hommes, sommes incapables de savoir quel bien) et la théorie du mal de d'Aquin comme une privation, Dieu ne cause donc pas le mal comme une chose positive.
- Pour les miracles, il analyse avec beaucoup de précision les objections de Hume
- Pour le lien entre la moralité et Dieu, il se positionne avec la solution de Thomas d'Aquin qui est un mélange de commandement divin et de loi naturelle qui permet d'échapper au dilemme d'Euthyphron. Ce dilemme dit que soit Dieu dépend d'une loi extérieure à lui à laquelle il doit obéir (du coup il n'est plus indépendant, vraiment Dieu), soit il ordonne des lois arbitraires, il pourrait donc promulguer des lois mauvaises, comme dire que violer un enfant est bien. Davies donne un excellent résumé de d'Aquin sur la question qu'on peut rapporter en deux points :
1) Dieu crée les choses en les dotant d'essences, de natures objectives pour que leur seule manière de s'épanouir (pour l'homme d'être heureux) soit se "comporter" d'une manière conforme à celles-ci. Ce qui est bien pour l'homme du coup, c'est de faire ce qui est conforme à sa nature (c'est l'éthique d'Aristote). Ainsi Dieu n'est plus un législateur arbitraire, il ne peut pas définir le mal comme étant bien.
2) Mais ces natures, comme c'est Dieu qui les crée, elles n'existent pas indépendamment de lui, ce ne sont pas des principes auxquels il est soumis. Il n'est donc pas soumis à une loi extérieure à lui
Ainsi, on réalise que le dilemme d'Euthyphron n'est réalité qu'un faux dilemme.
- Il ne semble pas convaincu par les différents arguments philosophiques pour une vie après la mort mais reste ouvert sur l'argument qui se base sur la confiance que nous pouvons avoir en Jésus, qui est vraiment ressuscité. Par contre, il a complètement mis de côté les arguments aristotéliciens/thomistes pour l'hylémorphisme qui prouve l'existence d'une âme immatérielle et donc immortelle, ce qui est dommage (il n'aborde que la position platoniste et cartésienne qui place l'identité de la personne humaine seulement dans l'esprit sans prendre en compte le corps).
-

[Sankynymous · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's not accurately described then again it's philosophy. Best part is author gave lot of common life example to explain the perspective.
What I understand "Religion" is meant to unite people never to discriminate and divide. This is completely lost in today's world.

[Andreas Nedergård · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with many introductory volumes, a great belly flop into the subject. The writing style, a little bit of everything back and forth in long sections of text, makes for rather sleepy even if informative reading.

[Dilyana · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting topics - unpleasant delivery. I found the language extremely monotonous and the views of the author leaked through into his discussion a bit too much for my liking and given the context of the book (an introduction to the philosophy of religion). Had the potential to be great though.

[Richard Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. As an introduction it rightly assumes no prior knowledge, and the reader can gain a lot without any philosophical background. Yet Davies pulls off a good trick, because even if you do have a philosophical background you should find the book interesting. As with any introductory text there is a limit to how much can be covered in one book, and I think Davies makes a good judgement as to what to include and what to exclude. If you are studying this subject at degree level you will almost certainly need more material than is included in this book - but it covers the ground well, and contains plenty of pointers to further readings in individual areas of interest. I enjoyed the book a lot, and Davies style and choice of content is a great example of what an introductory philosophical book should be. Davies tries to be unbiased, although occasionally his own views do come through.

The title makes it clear this is a philosophy book and not a book of biblical studies, religious history or about comparative religious studies. Even so, my main caveat is with the book's title. As so often is the case the phrase "Philosophy of Religion" means philosophy of monotheistic religions of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths. Davies makes this clear in the introduction, if not in the book's title. In reality, the contents are even narrower than this as whilst there are occasional nods to great Muslim or Jewish thinkers, they are few and far between. Pretty much all of the philosophers quoted are in the Christian tradition, along with ancient Greek thinkers. (It's a bit like those history books which claim to be histories of the world, but are in fact histories of the world from the viewpoint of one country, and only contain information that pertains to that country's history). I rate this book highly, but if you want something calling on a broader tradition of religious thinkers it may not suit.

Having said all of that there is much to praise about the style and content of the book. Even if you are looking for a broader philosophy of religion, read this and you will be taken through many different arguments, which whilst they derive from those arguing about Christianity, are in fact relevant to many religious debates.

[Nancy Dinan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I actually do miss theology

[Kirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Third edition (2004), so it doesn't address the "new atheists" or their critics, but that's no great loss. I like Davies's fair, clear, reasonable way of examining objections, responses, and rebuttals to all viewpoints. It reminds me of a few of my other favorite authors, Herbert McCabe, Derek Parfit, and Amartya Sen.

However, it focuses too narrowly on Christians and secular philosophy--no Jews no Muslims since the Middle Ages, and no Buddhists or Hindus at all. It also contrasts "classical theism" and recent "theistic personalism," with barely a hint that well-developed Western pantheistic and panentheistic views on the topics under discussion go back over 2000 years.

This book is meant as an introduction, not a treatise. But total silence on Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Western panentheist views--not even suggestions for further reading--is too extreme. If not for this omission, I'd give it 5 stars.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eh. A pretty decent introduction to the basic arguments and problems (dutifully trots through the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, etc.). The problem is that he wants to come to his own conclusions in this but is afraid to seem like the Catholic he is so he ends up arguing for a Spinozistic philosopher God, which is fine but dull.

[F. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think if Davies could have keep a neutral position, this could have been a much better book, because he would have make his points based on not God's existence, but like natural laws and common sense.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Only used this for revision purposes and it was very easy to understand so I would recommend to anyone who wants to begin learning about philosophy or to use as a revision guide.

[James Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Far too positive about the arguments around God (he is a monk), but a really useful source of basic information for the new AQA philosophy spec.

[Chaton]

如同导论般的引介与启蒙效用的读物，简单易懂也确是[前言]中写道的旨在表述平实，其为清晰的框架，而实质内容的少量虽美名其曰为：引起自主的开放思考，但实际上文本的单薄显得这本好似幻象（maya）。此外又因为「宗教哲学」：利用哲学观点和概念解释来论证宗教的学说，从理性上研究宗教的基本问题 这一简单说出的定义自古本就有所争议，围绕哲学与宗教的互斥性展开的争议，如同读过 Le Moine et le Philosophe 的理性主义者常常会质疑的一般，结合起来更显得本书浅显，这点确实有几分「教科书」的感觉了。

而就在分量本就较小的前提下，本书主要论述的是上帝等相关问题，而我最近更对神迹（miracle）与神秘主义（occultism）/密契主义（mysticism）问题感兴趣，可惜文中多为对于大卫·休谟（David Hume）的观点的陈述与批评，除此之外就没有什么有价值内容了。而我其实很好奇波伊曼和他提到的那位好友的具体看法。
【1】波伊曼的那位好友：
当我作为一个年轻的基督教神秘主义者来到美国东部的一所学院时，我相信神迹。······那一刻我由一个神秘主义者变成了一个理性主义者。它是我具有决定性的实验。就我所知，神迹不会发生。
【2】密契主义（mysticism）的关键概念：密契经验（感觉自己的灵魂与一个至高的精神实体相契合的经验），其中关于对安东·费弗勒（Antoine Faivre）提出的隐秘论（esoterism）定义条则的解读与对理查·斯温伯恩（Richard Swinburne）之流的自然神论（deism）的解释联系。

而无论是永恒的秘传经典是先于人类而存在的永恒主义（eternalism），还是埃克哈特（Meister Eckhart）的万物合一&人性高价的神学思想，若是期待想看到这些方面的，本书显然无法满足，只是大问题集合而已。

[Niko · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good introduction to the philosophy of Christianity; the other religions are alluded to at times but the monotheistic god is the primary focus. It doesn't offer much more than presenting the main arguments for the existence of a god. The historical arguments are informative but the author's own attempts are rarely worthwhile⁠—like most (or all theologians), he assumes a vital piece of information and proceeds to argue from there, but unlike the past thinkers, he has access to the latest scientific findings, which is where he fails completely. Especially glaring is his completely wrong interpretation of the theory of evolution, showing that he is either incapable or unwilling to consider the actual information and not only assume something for the sake of argument.

[Zhelana · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is very strange that I got this book from a rabbi's garage sale because rather than a philosophy of religion intro this was a treatise on why God does not exist. It starts each chapter with a basic overview of what theologians or religious philosophers say on a topic and then spends the bulk of the chapter disproving the first part. I mean, maybe modern philosophers have all decided not to be religious but certainly in a philosophy of religion you can give more time and attention to those philosophers who were religious? By the time I realized this was a pattern, I was 70% into the book, so I decided to finish it instead of giving up on it, but this is not a book I would have picked up had I known what it was going to be, and it is not a book I would suggest to anyone else.

[Dylan Kochan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book! My sanguinity at its beginning was not at all deterred throughout. This book serves as a solid introduction to Classical Theistic concepts, as Brian Davies is Catholic. Nevertheless, even though Davies is Catholic, he does a wonderful job accurately characterizing and describing the diverse philosophical positions that contravene his (i.e. citing to the work of Peter Van Inwagen, Alvin Pantinga, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, etc.). I quite enjoyed the book, and I was forced to deeply think through many positions.

I hope to pen a longer review on some novel insights when my schedule relents.

[Janet · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very comprehensive analytical introduction. I’m particularly interested in latter parts of the book covering miracle, after life, etc. Overall it’s a very comprehensive but dull book.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rather dated now, but the first chapter on two rival conceptions of God (Classical Theism vs. Theistic Personalism) is required reading.

[Alexander · Rating 3 out of 5]

400 pages and half of them quote the same 4 people: aquinas hume Augustine and descarte

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though I took a course in the philosophy of religion as an undergraduate some years ago, I needed a refresher and Brian Davies' AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION proved an accessible resource. Davies' book is set up in twelve chapters on the subjects of 1) concepts of God, 2) philosophy and religious belief, 3) cosmological arguments, 4) design arguments, 5) ontological arguments, 6) experience and God, 7) talking about God, 8) divine simplicity, 9) omnipotence and omniscience, 10) God and evil, 11) miracles, 12) morality and religion, and 13) life after death.

As an introductory textbook, Davies' book serves fairly well. I especially like his clear explanation of the difference between classical theists and theistic personalism, a recent trend which older textbooks don't adequately cover. I have only a couple of complaints. The first is that his explanation of the ontological arguments isn't as clearly written as it could have been. The ontological argument is as opaque as a Zen koan to most of the public, and demands just the right approach. The other weak aspect of the book is the lack of any discussion of the probability calculus as used in the philosophy of religion, widely known from e.g. Swinburne's THE RESURRECTION OF GOD INCARNATE.

Nonetheless, Davies' book seems to be a good choice if you want to start in this field from scratch. Be prepared, however, to start chasing primary documents soon.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good primer for any study of the philosophy of religion. Davies adequately explains the major elements of the monotheistic religions and provides a number of viewpoints on all ideas presented. I wish he didn't display his own opinion quite so prominently, although I imagine that writing a completely objective account of religious arguments would be rather difficult.

Sections on polytheistic religions and agnosticism/atheism would be a nice addition as well. As it is, the book really only talks about the traditions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

[William Rumball · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent and comprehensive overview for the arguments for God's existence, and other major features of philosophy of religion such as the nature of God and miracles. It is written from a Thomist perspective but is very fair to competing philosophical arguments and could easily be read by anyone. Probably its greatest weakness is the defence of the problem of evil based on the abdication of God's moral responsibilities which I think is one of the weaker cases. Somewhere between beginner and intermediate level for anyone interested in Philosophy of Religion.

[ROC · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great book that thoroughly explores and explains many philosophical arguments for and against religious concepts in a fair manner.

[Reynolds · Rating 2 out of 5]

its going to be fun

[Ági · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite thorough, very understandable, a perfect entry to the realm of philosophy of religion.

[Grace Carlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book for my Religion class. Over all not too bad, put a few things into prospective but did the run around on different prospectives.

[Lorna]

This is presents traditional arguments for the existence of God in a very clear, reasonably easy to understand way. :)

[Tyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a bit dense for an introductory text; thus, it may not be the best starting point for readers interested in the topic. The first half contains the book's best chapters: concepts of God, religious belief and philosophy, the ontological, cosmological, and design arguments, God and personal experience, and divine simplicity. I appreciated Davies' careful balance of the various arguments presented in each chapter. Moreover, Davies does a good job of translating the dense argumentation of Thomas Aquinas on these topics into readable prose. The latter chapters, however, seemed to present fewer critiques of the theistic arguments on omniscience and omnipotence, the problem of evil, and miracles.