Religious belief is a significant factor in the lives of most people in the world today. Some understanding of the nature of particular religious beliefs and an ability to engage in discussion on the subject in a thoughtful and reasoned way are, in an increasingly globalized and diverse society, perhaps even more valuable than they have been in the past. Living as we do in a nation which is notable for its extreme secularity, an approach to the discussion of religious beliefs in a philosophical way could be an attractive option, and I suggest that reading Brian Davies’ An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion might be a good place to start.
The 2004 edition is a second revision of the initial 1982 publication and is used widely by undergraduates. It is the introductory companion to Philosophy of Religion: a Guide and Anthology, compiled by Davies, which includes important essays containing what he refers to in this book as the key arguments.
Over the past thirty years or so, contributions to the philosophy of religion have benefited from the release of renewed energies in the areas of logic, epistemology, and metaphysics which, drawing on Wittgenstein’s insight into the uses of language in particular contexts, caused the demise of logical positivism. Until the positivistic principle of verifiability, which imposed a tyranny of strict empiricism, was shown to be inadequate even for science, the intellectual climate was such that, according to the philosopher Michael Peterson, “it was difficult and even embarrassing for any self-respecting intellectual to take religious claims seriously”.1
This is not to say that the philosophy of religion is a new branch of philosophy, and indeed the greater part of Davies’ book examines the “natural theology” arguments of the patristic authors and the scholastic philosophers, notably Thomas Aquinas and those of a range of thinkers from the eighteenth century, notably David Hume, to the present day. Recent studies are represented in the arguments of Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga amongst many others, and also notable are the contributions of Elizabeth Anscombe, to whose memory the book is dedicated.
The first chapter is called “Concepts of God” and sets the stage for much of the following theistic (as opposed to theist-versus-atheist) disputes by describing two opposing concepts. The more traditional of these is “classical theism”, proposing the concept of God as simple, omnipotent and eternal that is founded upon his being the Creator. The other, which Davies calls “theistic personalism” (pp. 9-15) is a position held by many modern theologians and rejects classical theism for a variety of reasons. Some argue that it is “logically indefensible or in some way incoherent”, but the reason usually given is that the God of classical theism it describes does not conform to their “biblical picture” of God.
Introducing these two approaches in this way is, I think, not entirely fair as the “theistic personalist” position is made to seem less objective in the light of its dependence on Scripture rather than reason. Even Aquinas, in his meticulously logical Summa Theologiae, makes regular appeals to Scripture as the inspirer of his hypotheses.
The next chapter looks at the views of different schools of thought about what constitutes a justified conclusion about God, what a meaningful statement is, and what can be accepted as evidence. Davies concludes this chapter with an interesting discussion on the theory of “belief without evidence”, after quoting on p.37 Alvin Plantinga’s claim that “it is entirely right, rational, reasonable, and proper to believe in God without any evidence or argument at all”. After these arguments and commentaries upon them, the central questions which the philosophy of religion seeks to throw light on are presented in turn, chapter by chapter, in a reasoned progression beginning with a chapter on the cosmological argument for the existence of God and ending, nine chapters later, with a very curious chapter on life after death.
All of the arguments are presented in detail, with attention paid to all important claims and objections so that no pedant might be frustrated by an unturned stone. The confined nature of a short introduction does not allow for the varied affirmation of single ideas, but Davies’ sentences, despite the abstract nature of his subject, are always clear in their meaning. So he sums up Descartes’ ontological argument: “If God is by definition something supremely perfect, and if existence is a perfection, it follows that God exists and that to deny that this is so is to contradict oneself” (p.100).
It seems that part of the work of theistic philosophers is to repel the attacks of atheistic philosophers by rebutting their confident objections to the possibility of God. In doing this Brian Davies, a Roman Catholic priest and a Dominican friar, with all chivalry and fairness in an honest spirit of enquiry, certainly proves his mettle.