Is There a God?

by Graham Oppy, Kenneth L. Pearce, Helen De Cruz (Foreword)

Bertrand Russell famously quipped that he didn't believe in God for the same reason that he didn't believe in a teapot in orbit between the earth and Mars: it is a bizarre assertion for which no evidence can be provided. Is belief in God really like belief in Russell's teapot? Kenneth L. Pearce argues that God is no teapot. God is a real answer to the deepest question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? Graham Oppy argues that we should believe that there are none but natural causal entities with none but natural causal properties--and hence should believe that there are no gods. Beginning from this basic disagreement, the authors proceed to discuss and debate a wide range of philosophical questions, including questions about explanation, necessity, rationality, religious experience, mathematical objects, the foundations of ethics, and the methodology of philosophy. Each author first presents his own side, and then they interact through two rounds of objections and replies.

Pedagogical features include standard form arguments, section summaries, bolded key terms and principles, a glossary, and annotated reading lists. In the volume foreword, Helen De Cruz calls the debate "both edifying and a joy," and sums up what's at stake: "Here you have two carefully formulated positive proposals for worldviews that explain all that is: classical theism, or naturalistic atheism. You can follow along with the authors and deliberate: which one do you find more plausible?"

Though written with beginning students in mind, this debate will be of interest to philosophers at all levels and to anyone who values careful, rational thought about the nature of reality and our place in it.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Atheism

366 pages, Paperback

Published October 13, 2021

About the author

Graham Robert Oppy is an Australian philosopher whose main area of research is the philosophy of religion. He currently holds the posts of Professor of Philosophy and Associate Dean of Research at Monash University and serves as CEO of the Australasian Association of Philosophy, Chief Editor of the Australasian Philosophical Review, Associate Editor of the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, and serves on the editorial boards of Philo, Philosopher's Compass, Religious Studies, and Sophia. He was elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 2009. (Source: Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Anthony J. Toumazatos · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book for anyone interested in one of history’s great philosophical debates. I found myself more in favor of the worldview put forth by Kenny Pearce, the theistic philosopher. It was appreciated how he attempted to construct a worldview free of brute fact, or facts which should have an explanation yet simply do not. The usage of “necessity”, or brute fact, was a particular sore spot to me for the worldview of Graham Oppy, the atheist philosopher.
Oppy believes that facts pertaining to morals, math, ethics, and more happen to be “necessary”, or brute. Usage of necessity in this argument seemed like some sort of philosophical phlogiston to me: it can shield you from answering tough questions and can be applied to any and all topics. That is not to say, of course, that he himself did not make intriguing points. Overall, though, I feel no philosopher did their side injustice and would encourage anyone to read this book.

[Matthew Adelstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Both of these guys are, of course, brilliant. Still, the debate focused on a very small range of arguments--only the argument from religious experience and the contingency argument. Pearce had an interesting version of the contingency argument that I found more convincing than others I'd encountered, noting that only a free choice can provide a non-necessitating explanation of the universe that prevents necessitarianism. Still, the debate was a bit dull at times, and got very into the weeds of Graham's particular idiosyncratic views about e.g. grounding. Thus, it was a bit hard to see how it bore broadly on the debate about theism--the title may have been "Arguing About Graham's Extremely Specific Views on Everything."

[Laurent Dv · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un débat entre un théiste (chrétien : Pearce) et un athée (Oppy) principalement sur l'argument cosmologique (un version originale de Pearce) et l'argument de l’expérience religieuse mais aussi d'à peu près tous les sujets de la réalité : science, mathématiques, morale, fine-tuning de l'univers, etc.

Très technique (j'ai trouvé Oppy plus clair) mais à la fin de chaque raisonnement/suite de paragraphes il y a des encarts utiles qui résument facilement les idées ainsi que des encarts de définition/historiques. Beaucoup de choses que je n'ai pas comprises, à relire. Le livre débat entre Joshua Rasmussen et Felipe Leon était plus clair pour moi.

Très bonnes références (copieuses en notes de bas de page) et bibliographies à la fin sur chaque sujet.

[Uriah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lots of substance. Lots of clash. For anyone looking for a great introduction to philosophy of religion this is the book for you. Very easy to read for complex worldviews.

My thoughts on the debate itself. I don't think there were any real "winners" per se (though, you can say I was the winner for having read this great book.) I think both authors defended their worldviews successfully and it's really up to the reader which worldview he agrees with.