Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith

by C. Stephen Evans

Is there a God? How can we know? What can we know about God? These questions are the focal points of the philosophy of religion. C. Stephen Evans wrestles with these issues, looking at the classical arguments for God's existence and examining the contemporary challenges to theism from sociology, psychology and philosophy. He investigates the meaning and significance of personal religious experience, revelation and miracles, and looks at how religious pluralism relates to individual commitment.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Nonfiction, Christian, Academic, Christianity

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

About the author

C. Stephen Evans (b. Atlanta , Georgia) is an American historian and philosopher, he is one of the United States' leading experts on Søren Kierkegaard having published six books on Kierkegaard over 25 years. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Baylor University. He holds a B.A. with High Honors (philosophy), from Wheaton College, an M.Phil. (philosophy) from Yale University, and a Ph.D. (philosophy) from Yale University.

He has won numerous awards, and reviews manuscripts for several university presses, including Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press, as well as Harper and Rowe. He does the same for several academic journals. He was curator of the Howard V. and Edna H. Hong Kierkegaard Library. He has organized several major conferences. He served five years on the the editorial board for Kierkegaard Monographs and for the International Kierkegaard Commentary Series. He is a past president of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Søren Kierkegaard Society.

Reviews

[J. Wootton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great little introduction to the field. Well-written.

[Brantley · Rating 4 out of 5]

After taking a Philosophy of Religion class this semester, I decided to read through a different intro book than the one we were assigned for class to see how it compared. Personally, I thought this book was better than the one we read in class (for me at least) because it seemed to be aimed more at a basic understanding of the topic on an academic level whereas Thinking about God: First Steps in Philosophyseemed to leave the reader a little less informed. I would definitely recommend the other book for someone in a church wanting a basic understanding of the how to approach their beliefs on a philosophical level, but for a class, I felt that this was more effective and informative. At times, Evans writs in such a way that someone new to the field may not know what's going on, so it didn't get a five star rating. Nonetheless, it was worth going thorough, and I plan to recommend it to my professor.

[Bailey Marissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book on philosophy and religion.

Used with LU Online course: Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas

[L Gregory Lott · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an easy read, and a good basic elementary primer on philosophy of religion. Overall it is good to have in one's library for an overview or if one is not that familiar with philosophy of religion. However, for me it was almost too basic as my major forte is in philosophy and theology. This is why for me it was an easy read. There are some good pointers if one wanted to use this book to help in teaching philosophy of religion.

[J.J. Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this approaches Philosophy of Religion from a Christian perspective, it is very careful to take objections to the Christian world view seriously. Not a light read, but a good one.

[Bret James Stewart · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to preface this review by saying I am generally annoyed by philosophy books. It seems like some sort of Cracker Jack pseudo-religious material compiled by a too-smart-for-his-own good man who thinks he has the answers to life. Secular philosophers, especially, seem to have no filter for ridiculous concepts, and I have read the most glorious nonsense that I would have thought the author would have been too embarrased to claim. Okay, I realize this is not a fair statement, some philosophers are legit, and some good can be garnered from reading philosophy (at least in theory).

This book is from a Christian perspective, so that is somewhat better--at least it is coming from the proper mindset and potentially incorporating the correct presuppositions. Also, this is a survey, so that is better than an in-depth book that will go deep into the nonsense. Now that we know my presuppositions, we can proceed with the review.

Philosophy of Religion is a book about philosophy by philosophers. The main thrust of the book is to serve as a survey in the field of the philosophy of religion and to maintain a Christian defense and worldview as it pertains to that field.

As might be expected, the first portion of the book seeks to identify and define the term “philosophy of religion,” both by what it is and what it is not. Critical dialogue is selected as the methodology for the book’s approach. This term assumes reason to mean “the willingness to test one’s commitments,” thereby allowing an honest appraisal in grappling with the complex issues Christianity or any belief system faces. This permits the possibility and judgment as to which system(s) are viable.

One of the main arguments in the book is that it is not unreasonable for people to believe in a theistic God without evidential proof. The existence of God cannot be, strictly speaking, proven or disproven. This does not mean belief in God is irrational. Indeed, some arguments, such as the ontological, teleological, moral, and cosmological—collectively known as the classical arguments--arguing for the existence of God, are able to utilize reason to reach their conclusions.

A defense of the rationality of miracles is present as is a comparison and contrast of religion to its sometime-opponents in the hard and soft sciences, philosophical/social movements such as modernity, Darwinism, and Marxism. When compared to these maxims, the authors argue that belief in God is as viable as the alternatives. Sometimes, theism is even a more logical position.

Another major purpose of the book is to challenge the assumption that the presence of evil in the world is indicative that God does not exist. This general concept is known as the problem of evil. The authors demonstrate that the various forms of the no-God argument are not convincing and can be rebutted logically and accurately. In one of the better portions of the book, in my opinion, they show how the existence of evil can be used to prove the existence of God, thereby turning the objection on its ear.

The conclusions reached are that belief in God is logical, normal, and defendable. Christianity is a viable faith. The truth claims made in the Bible and/or by the religion can be defended and should be considered accurate.

There was nothing proposed by the authors with which I disagreed, although I am not a philosopher, so some of the arguments may have been flawed and I did not recognize this. There were two issues that respectively annoyed and surprised me. First, the decision to use “he” and “she” randomly made reading the book distracting. When I read “she,” I assume the passage applies exclusively to women. Combined with my general dislike of philosophical books, this use of random pronouns really made me not like reading the text. Further, the author’s decision to use the random pronouns in an attempt to adhere to modern contrivance seems like selling out to a more liberal mindset. The surprising part of the book was that the section dealing with the problem of evil does not include the current satanic reign over the earth, which I had surmised would be the main element of this argument.

I would normally rank this 2.3 stars, but, since there are only full stars, I rounded down. This book might help someone (students and scholars would be the normal candidates) grappling with some sort of philosophical religious dilemma, but, otherwise, I would skip it, if I were you. This book is too superficial (it is a survey, as I mentioned) for most scholars, so that leaves students. Unless you are assigned this book, I recommend taking a pass.

[Sunny · Rating 1 out of 5]

As I read The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery, I am accosted by Renee's extensive philosophical knowledge and opinions, I am reminded of my limited exposure to the subject. My last course in college - taken as an elective to satisfy the minimum reqired credit hours for graduation - was Philosophy of Religion. The textbook selected by my esteemed professor was of the same name. Anxious to finish my college sentence, I registered for this seeming EASY grade of A. I expected to learn the varying differences of the major world religions such as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Alas, I should have read the course description, which explained that it was a PHILOSOPHY course designed to have the student question the validity of religion and divinity. Chapters about natural theology, classical arguments for God's existence, religious experiences, the problem of evil, and miracles introduce the novice philosopher to theories put forth by Kant, St. Anselm, Descartes, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, and others. Vocabulary words such as ontological, teleological, numinous, and fideism are defined and expounded upon. And monotheism is discussed in monotone with comatose students. I got my A, but hated every minute of this course.

And, yes, I actually pulled this damn book off the shelf and referred to my handwritten notes in the margins to jog my memory. Because this was a course of memorizing, regurgitating, and forgetting.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Evans summarizes much of philosophy of religion, particularly with a Christian audience in mind. Epistemologically, he takes a position of "weak foundationalism" (foundationalism that relies on experience, as well?) that seems to me more like some form of coherentism. Throughout the book, he tends to give much weight to religious experience as a major factor in justifying one's belief in God. As he discusses the various arguments for the existence of God, he implies that one's religious experience will determine whether one will find any of them "rationally convincing." I found this puzzling; arguments for God's existence have often been deductive, so the real question is whether their conclusions follow from their premises, and whether their premises are true. Perhaps this is the influence of Kierkegaard manifesting itself in Evans's writing.

Evans also provides Christian/theistic responses to the problem of evil, arguments against miracles, and to the problem(s) of religious language. Evans is a very respectable Christian philosopher of religion, and I stand to learn much from him in my future years.

[Rick Mattson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of my favorite books for giving an overview of the issues in the philosophy of religion. Evans is a graceful writer with professional command of the material.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 3 out of 5]

Une bonne introduction à la philosophie de la religion : accessible (donc vraiment une introduction), chapitres assez courts, d'un point de vue théiste évangélique (reste clairement dans l'orthodoxie) mais pas de schémas, d'encart, une bibliographie très petite à la fin (mais quelques œuvres listées dans les notes de bas de page).

Il aborde les sujets classiques (arguments théistes ontologique (version d'Anselme et de Plantinga), cosmologique, téléologique (version de Paley et fine-tuning) et moral (présente la théorie du commandement divin, la version modifiée basée sur la nature de Dieu et la théorie de la loi naturelle), expérience religieuse et miracles, problèmes logique et empirique du mal), défend un argument cumulatif, bien que non contraignant pour faire accepter la foi, est rationnel. L'assentiment à ou le rejet de chaque argument dépend in fine de présupposés, convictions ou d'intuitions du croyant ou de l'athée (pour l'argument cosmologique (version de Leibniz et le kalam), de l'adoption ou le rejet du PRS, le fine-tuning de l'émerveillement devant un design apparent, l'ontologique de la possibilité logique ou non de Dieu etc.).
Sur le problème du mal, il adopte une position assez modeste (pas fan des théodicées, il évoque celle par le libre-arbitre et celle par le soul-making de John Hick) mais semble accepter une défense : le problème logique du mal échoue à trouver une contradiction entre Dieu et le mal, tandis que la version empirique échoue car en raison du CORNEA de Stephen Wykstra. Il traite aussi du problème de l'enfer (enfer classique, enfer "allégé" (mou), universalisme et annihilationnisme), et du problème du Dieu caché.

Sur la providence et et la responsabilité humaine, il n'est pas très représentatif car réduit les positions possibles seulement au calvinisme compatibiliste et déterministe (rejette tout libre-arbitre au sens libertarien), au molinisme et à l'open-théisme.

Il comprend aussi deux contenus originaux. D'abord une section introductive sur la révélation (spéciale divine vs naturelle en reprenant le jargon protestant), son lien avec les miracles avant d'entrer dans le débat autour des miracles (y en a t-il vraiment, etc.) où l'auteur présente trois positions sur la Bible :
1) Position traditionnelle : la Bible est inspirée de Dieu, sans erreur
2) Position libérale : réduit la révélation spéciale à la révélation naturelle, la Bible est un livre brillant mais parmi d'autres, les miracles qu'elle relate n'ont pas eu lieu, élude son unité et met l'accent sur sa diversité pour pointer l'origine purement naturelle et humaine de la Bible
3) Position néo-conservatrice (la néo-orthodoxie de Karl Barth) : Dieu a bel et bien agi de façon miraculeuse dans l'histoire, mais la Bible n'est pas parfaite.

Et le lien entre sociologie et religion, si la première est à même d'expliquer naturellement la seconde : théories des trois maîtres du soupçon, Nietzsche, Marx et Freud. L'auteur fait remarquer le sophisme généalogique si l'on s'en sert comme des arguments contre le théisme. Cependant, il soulève une autre interprétation de ces auteurs athées : ils de développent pas tant des arguments contre le théisme, mais plutôt pour justifier comment il se fait que tant de gens persistent à y adhérer après que Hume et Kant on montré qu'il était faux. Autrement dit, ils supposent que le théisme est faux puis cherchent à expliquer pourquoi tant de gens y croient quand même encore.

Le point fort selon moi est le dernier chapitre sur la foi et la raison, et sur le pluralisme (rejette celui de Hick), sur comment peut-on dire qu'un croyant a la foi alors même qu'il a des doutes, et comment avoir la foi même si on n'est pas entièrement convaincu par des arguments rationnels.
Evans défend que la foi est certes un assentiment (acte mental) à des propositions (la Trinité, la divinité, la messianité et la Seigneurie du Christ), mais également une action ou un engagement concret personnel envers Dieu : c'est se lancer dans une expérience personnelle religieuse avec Dieu (lui faire confiance). Il compare cela à un malade qui même s'il n'a pas lu toutes les études universitaires sur l'efficacité d'un médicament recommandé par des médecins, va s'engager personnellement à le prendre et va ensuite se rendre compte dans sa vie personnelle de son efficacité.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I was only required to read certain parts of this book for graduate school, and thus did not read it in whole, I found what I did read to be thought-provoking. Here is a summary of the sections that I read in the book:

Religious Experience and Apologetics

When beginning their talk on religious experiences, the authors of the book Philosophy of Religion, C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Meanis, make a distinction between the religious dimension of experience, and special experiences that are religious. They make this distinction because certain religious convictions can act as the lens through which people view their experiences (which is different than actually having a religious experience). A simplistic definition of a religious experience is given when the authors describe it as an, “awareness of the divine.” In this book, the authors chose to concentrate their focus on theistic-type experiences. The authors described two models for understanding experience; the representational model and the model of direct realism. The representational model can best be described with the following illustration: “When a person sees a tree, what he really sees is not the actual tree but a set of images or sensations produced by his brain as a result of the appropriate sensory input. The subjective image then serves as a representation of the actual tree in the physical world.” On the other hand, the direct realism view claims that, “in cases of genuine perceptual experience, a person is directly aware of what she sees or hears.” Moving past these two models, the authors bring up the fact that many people claim to hear God speaking to them through a friend or a song, in which case the individual believes that they are experiencing God in and through something else that is experienced. The principle of credulity would lend credence to their claim, as well as other claims, though, because this principle is motivated by the assumption that experiences are normally genuine. Therefore, if someone has an experience in which it appears that God is present, then it is reasonable to believe that God really is present (unless this person’s senses are believed to be unreliable).

Miracles

The authors classify miracles under the category of a, “special act of God.” The authors do not, however, feel that miracles can universally be categorized as a “sign,” because it is entirely possible that many miracles go unnoticed by humanity. The authors spend a good deal of time stating and rebutting David Hume’s views on this subject based on his well-known work, Of Miracles. The authors write that, “It seems rash, therefore, for philosophers or others to claim dogmatically that miracles cannot happen. Miracles seem possible at least, and it also seems possible for there to be compelling evidence for their occurrence – evidence of the ordinary historical kind.” In their conclusion to their discussion on this topic, they brought up a point which I am inclined to agree with. They wrote that one’s belief or unbelief in miracles will be heavily shaped by their view of the likelihood of God’s existence, and their view of God’s nature and purposes.

The Problem of Evil

The authors state, and I agree, that the most often mentioned objection to the existence of God is something that has come to be known as the Problem of Evil. The Problem of Evil is the idea that a good being would eliminate any evil from the world as far as it is able to, yet we still see evil in the world. Because we are able to observe that there is evil in the world, God must not exist. The authors separate the evil in the world into two categories: moral evil (such as rape, murder, and social injustice) and natural evil (such as natural disasters and diseases). In essence, this argument is saying that, “the existence of evil constitutes a proof that God does not exist…the occurrence of evil and the existence of God are logically incompatible: it is a contradiction to claim both that a perfectly good, all-knowing, all-powerful being exists and that evil exists.” Other philosophers concede that an all good, all-knowing, all-powerful God could have reasons to allow for the existence of evil, however while it is possible, it is unlikely or improbable. Christians (and theists alike) tend to give one of two responses. One response, a theodicy, attempts to explain the reason why God may allow evil in the world. Another response, simply called a defense, explains that God does have reasons for allowing evil, but we do not and cannot know these reasons. The basis for these types of arguments is called a second-order good, or a, “good that logically requires the existence…of some evil in order to be realized.” Also, one could use the argument that humans have free will and could choose evil for themselves to show that a good God may not always eliminate evil, and also that an omnipotent being may not always eliminate all evil so as to avoid the loss of a greater good.

Rather than saying that the existence of evil proves that God does not exist, a new form of the argument for the Problem of Evil has developed in recent years which attacks head on the argument for the “greater good.” This is called the evidential argument, and it states that, “the existence of evil – and, more specifically, the kinds and quantity of evil that we actually find in the world – constitutes powerful evidence against God’s existence…the evil that we find renders it unlikely that God exists, and thus it provides us with good reason for not believing in God.” This argument, however, assumes that the existence of evil is pointless, and a believer could rebut this argument with the idea that not all evil is pointless. In the end, it seems that the best argument against the Problem of Evil is the idea that the human mind cannot comprehend God, and that his ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). Although evil’s existence in the world seems like a problem to mankind, those who put their trust in God have faith that there is a purpose for the evil.

Personal Faith

The authors state it well when they say that it is ultimately our faith which guides our judgments about religious questions. Because partial obedience is, in fact, disobedience, the authors propose that true faith requires the believer to commit fully to the belief system (and not just partially). As a whole, one’s personal religious belief must become one’s way of life.

When talking about an individual’s faith, the author rightly point out that everyone has a faith in something; “everyone has deep-rooted assumptions, convictions and attitudes that color what counts as evidence for him and how that evidence is interpreted.” Ultimately, the authors conclude that faith is, in essence, all of the following: “the assumptions, convictions and attitudes which the believer brings to a consideration of the evidence for and against religious truth…the commitment that is, in some cases, the outcome of this reflection…the subjective preferences of people generally, and…the specific kind of commitment which is involved in being a Christian.”

[Samuel G. Parkison · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm torn, because on one hand, this book is very useful in presenting and describing the major categories in a philosophy of religion. So in that sense, Evans and Manis really scratch the itch I had. But on the other hand, I am not at all happy with their analysis of those categories. Too many timid truces offered to the unbeliever throughout. By the end of the book, you're left thinking that the Psalmist was maybe taking things too far when he said, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps 14:1). Instead, maybe he should have said something like, "Sure, the one who says, 'There is no God' may have some merit, but the one who says, 'There is a God' is at least probably not a fool." For my own part, I am perfectly content with putting far more weight on the proofs for God's existence, and, with the Scriptures, insisting that unbelief is flat unjustifiable, rather than slogging through an attempt to merely, at the end of the day, offer up the timid conclusion: "It's probably not crazy to believe in a God."

So, I really want to give this book a "1" for analysis, and a "5" for layout and description. "3" is my compromise.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very solid overview and introduction to the major concepts within the broad subject of "philosophy of religion." Evans is well-informed, and provides a balanced (if somewhat conservative) discussion on topics like religious knowledge, religious experience, objections to faith, the nature of miracles, etc. He doesn't shy away from academic objections, and provides reasonable responses.

That being said, this book is clearly an introduction to the ideas, and not meant to be a deep-dive into any of them. It's a fantastic resource for someone looking for a read-able overview, particularly from an explicitly Christian perspective, but not great for someone looking for a deep and nuanced discussion of any one topic contained here. The final chapter, a discussion on religious pluralism and the commitment of faith today, is the strongest in the book. Recommended if you're looking for an introductory text, but if you're already well-read in the subject, this is level of reading may be too superficial.

[Josiah Watson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be an edifying introduction, probably the second best out of this series. I read the 2nd edition which includes new material on divine foreknowledge and Reformed epistemology. Like all the other books in this series Evans and Manis provide extensive endnotes and recommended reading for each topic addressed in this book. I still prefer Brian Davies' introduction, even if I am not a huge fan of some of his categories. However, I would still consider that to be the premier introduction to the field of "Philosophy of Religion." Despite that, some topics are addressed much better in this book, such as Reformed Epistemology. So this would be a great introduction to read alongside Davies' intro.

[Katerina · Rating 3 out of 5]

According to Evans and Manis, the philosophy of religion is the thoughtful consideration of religious beliefs in an effort to evaluate their truthfulness as much as possible. In this book, Evans and Manis overview the classical arguments for God’s existence, consider the evidence for miracles, discuss the problem of evil, and reflect on faith and reason. This book provides an understandable and useful overview of these topics.

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best introductory work to the topic I have ever read. Evans and Manis cover all the basics in a thoughtful, comprehensive and engaging manner. This books does come from a Christian approach but it presents opposing views in a strong and fair manner. A must have for any library. Highly recommended.

[Josh Hendley]

I definitely understand philosophy better in discussion rather than on paper, but this was a very good introduction. However, I find it odd that my Christian Philosophy class only seems to want me to focus on one thing from the book for the midterm… could have just discussed it in the lectures.

[☠︎︎༒︎✞︎ ѕℓιм ☠︎︎༒︎✞︎ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to read this book for my philosophy class.

[Ryan Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book, less detail than I would have liked, but what was presented was clear and straightforward. Evans perspective is unique (as any author's will be), coming from the perspective of "rational fideism." I think it is best balanced by evidentialist view, such as Thomas Reid or Gary Habermas, as well as a presuppositional (transcendental) view, e.g. Cornelius Van Til or George Bahnsen. Boa and Bowman have a lengthy but very well written treatment of several different apologetical perspectives in Faith Has Its Reasons, which gives a good overall scope for analyzing the traditional Christian philosophies and apologetical methods. Evans has many helpful things to say, but from my perspective, leaves much to be said that others supplement well.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Are faith and reason friends or foes. This book would contend they are friend. Evans looks at some of the classic issues of the existence of God, the credibility of miracles and revelation, the problem of evil, and the challenge of pluralism. This is not a book that proves Christian faith true but rather one that shows how Christian faith is reasonable and how valid arguments can be made for the central truths of Christian faith.

[Chrysostom · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is nothing in this book to offend the reasonable non-believer.

[Melissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

The section on evil is excellent.

[Jeffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good intro into the philosophy of religion.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a pretty good book especially the sections on God's existence, the importance of mythology, and free will vs. determinism.

[Fidelis Bulus]

what is philosophy of religion