In this article I shall concern myself with the question ‘Is some type of justification required in order for belief in God to be rational?’ Many philosophers and theologians in the past would have responded affirmatively to this question. However, in our own day, there are those who maintain that natural theology in any form is not necessary. This is because of the rise of a different understanding of the nature of religious belief. Unlike what most people in the past (...) thought, religious belief is not in any sense arrived at or inferred on the basis of other known propositions. On the contrary, belief in God is taken to be as basic as a person's belief in the existence of himself, of the chair in which he is sitting, or the past. The old view that there must be a justification of religious belief, whether known or unknown, is held to be mistaken. One of the most outspoken advocates of this view is Alvin Plantinga. According to Plantinga the mature theist ought not to accept belief in God as a conclusion from other things he believes. Rather, he should accept it as basic, as a part of the bedrock of his noetic structure. ‘The mature theist commits himself to belief in God; this means that he accepts belief in God as basic.’. (shrink)

Explores C. S. Lewis's views of the purpose of higher education and his distinctive answer: to experience pleasure.

This article attempts to clarify an “argument from reason” set forth by C. S. Lewis in his Miracles. While there are various contemporary interpretations of the argument, Lewis intended to expose the “cardinal difficulty of naturalism.” First, this article seeks to clarify both Lewis’s argument and the understanding of naturalism that it presupposes. Second, philosophers of religion—especially, William Hasker and Alvin Plantinga—have significantly contributed to the argument’s contemporary discussion, and so their views are addressed with the intent to show how (...) they differ from Lewis’s contribution. C. S. Lewis’s argument from reason was and is remains to this day philosophically timely and deserving of serious consideration. (shrink)

Examines the neglected topic of C.S. Lewis' views of pleasure, happiness, and the soul and why they are relevant to an explanation of his not becoming a Roman Catholic.

The formulations of the argument for atheism from evil are quite formal in nature. One “solution” to the problem of evil would be to deny that evil exists. But Clive Staples Lewis, a philosopher, would have none of this. He believed that pain is intrinsically evil, and it is its evilness that ultimately gives rise to the problem of evil. Lewis' thoughts about pain and God's reason is the subject of this chapter. The chapter also discusses Lewis's treatment of the (...) problem of evil. Lewis held that the justification for allowing human beings to experience pain is ultimately connected to the good of perfect happiness, where the enjoyment of it can be had only if persons have the freedom to choose how they will become happy, to choose to die or not to die to self. Thus, Lewis articulated his theodicy in terms of the actual individual and his or her happiness. (shrink)

This conclusion presents some closing thoughts discussed in this book. The book aims to provide the reader with a detailed account of the philosophical thought of Clive Staples Lewis. That thought remains relevant to contemporary philosophical discussions more than fifty years after his death. To illustrate how, the book deals with the recent contributions to a page of The Wall Street Journal under the title “Terms of Enlightenment”. The authors Frank Wilczek, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and (...) Steven Pinker, a psychologist at Harvard University, were asked to give their views about which scientific term or concept should be more widely known in 2017. Wilczek selected the concept of complementarity. Pinker believes the concept that deserves wider recognition is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The book discusses Lewis' responses according to the taken concepts of these authors. (shrink)

Much has been written since Clive Staples Lewis' day about belief that God exists (belief in the existence of God). It would be many years before Lewis became a theist. But what he thought in 1918 indicates that he would first resolve the issue of supernaturalism as opposed to naturalism in terms of his own self, before becoming a theistic supernaturalist. The distinctions between naturalism, supernaturalism, and theistic supernaturalism are reflected in Lewis's frequent references to those who believed England and (...) Europe were reverting to paganism. Having claimed that God is like the author of a play rather than a character in it, Lewis acknowledged that some would raise an objection. This chapter discusses this objection in detail. It also discusses Lewis's argument for the existence of a Creator, whom we call “God”. The chapter further explains some points to note with regard to the argument. (shrink)

The nature of choice and its relation to events in the material world are the subjects of this chapter. In pointing out the relative infrequency of the need to make choices, Clive Staples Lewis' seems to have understood how the making of them now reduces the need for them in the future. Lewis believed the regularity of nature is required for the making of undetermined choices that directly or indirectly cause events in the material world. Lewis concluded that our thinking (...) produces material events that are miraculous in the sense that they would not have occurred had nature proceeded on her own. He also concluded that someone who grasps what the topic of miracles is really about understands that there is nothing per se problematic with divine miracles. Finally, the chapter sets forth an important naturalistic argument against libertarian freedom and explains how Lewis would have responded to it. (shrink)

The prelims comprise: Half‐Title Page Series Page Title Page Copyright Page Dedication Page Table of Contents Acknowledgments.

This chapter talks about Clive Staples Lewis's thoughts regarding naturalism and morality. Lewis's view of morality and its relationship to happiness, along with his views about the intrinsic goodness of pleasure and the intrinsic evilness of pain, raises the specter of what is known in philosophy as Euthyphro's Dilemma. To illustrate what Lewis had in mind, it is helpful to consider briefly the modern evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson's explanation of how there can be meaning in life in a naturalistic (...) universe. Wilson is proposing that the meaning of life (human existence) is a matter of making sense of things. Lewis would have made clear that the fact that Wilson attempts to explain how there is meaning in life in a naturalistic universe confirms that he and we are beings who are committed to making sense of things. (shrink)

Clive Staples Lewis, a philosopher, regarded his argument from reason and soul‐body dualism as the primary principle for illuminating the Incarnation. However, he believed there is an additional illuminative principle, what he termed “the pattern of descent and reascension”. Given the centrality of the idea of descent and reascent in Lewis' thought about the meaning of life and its importance for understanding the Grand Miracle that is the Incarnation, this chapter gives an extended discussion of it. Lewis was a hedonist (...) about happiness, and his understanding of happiness provided the backdrop for his acceptance of the paradox of hedonism and the need to die to self. Lewis was a lover of myth and came to the conclusion that Christianity is a true myth. The chapter briefly explains how the descent‐reascent/dying‐rising motif was important in leading him to this conclusion. (shrink)

This chapter discusses Clive Staples Lewis's views about the purpose of life. Lewis himself believed that nature does not have its own purposes. Instead, he thought God created the natural world, and the human beings which inhabit it, for a purpose. Lewis believed the purpose of life is that we experience a happiness that he variably described as eternal, infinite, complete, or perfect. The experience of this happiness is the life of the blessed. Lewis thought happiness is experiencing pleasure, where (...) experiencing pleasure is the purpose for which God created us. A hedonist about happiness is someone who believes not only that pleasure is intrinsically good but also holds that pain is intrinsically evil. To say that the experience of pain is intrinsically evil is to say that pain is evil and does not derive its evilness from its relationship to anything else. (shrink)

Clive Staples Lewis, a philosopher, believed that our thought is inherently about things. Because it is, we are able to construct derivative forms of aboutness that represent things. Lewis considered a characteristic in his treatment of the philosophical theory that is called as “naturalism”. Lewis believed that a view like naturalism, which implies that a mental phenomenon like reasoning must and will ultimately be entirely explicable in nonmental and non‐psychological terms, “is really a theory that there is no reasoning”. Lewis (...) wrote in the margin of his edition of Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea that “the 'parts of the soul' are only a metaphor”. He was convinced that a belief in dualism is essentially an ordinary belief in a distinction between a soul and its body. Beliefs about the natures of the body and the soul have to await philosophical reflection. Common sense itself is philosophically idle. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and (...) implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the “unprecedented” circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs. (shrink)

There is a bias in neuroscience toward localizing and modularizing brain functions. Single cell recording, imaging studies, and the study of neurological deficits all feed into the Gallian view that different brain areas do different things and the things being done are confined to particular processing streams. At the same time, there is a growing sentiment that brains probably don’t work like that after all; it is better to conceive of them as fundamentally distributed units, multi‐tasking at every level. This (...) sentiment, however, is much less congenial to the tried‐and‐true experimental protocols available today and to theorizing about the brain in general. This essay examines the tension between current experimental methods and large-scale views of the brain. We argue that this disconnection between experiment and what really are guiding theoretical metaphors seriously impedes progress in neuroscience. (shrink)

There is a bias in neuroscience toward localizing and modularizing brain functions. Single cell recording, imaging studies, and the study of neurological deficits all feed into the Gallian view that different brain areas do different things and the things being done are confined to particular processing streams. At the same time, there is a growing sentiment that brains probably don’t work like that after all; it is better to conceive of them as fundamentally distributed units, multi‐tasking at every level. This (...) sentiment, however, is much less congenial to the tried‐and‐true experimental protocols available today and to theorizing about the brain in general. This essay examines the tension between current experimental methods and large-scale views of the brain. We argue that this disconnection between experiment and what really are guiding theoretical metaphors seriously impedes progress in neuroscience. (shrink)

This article examines how scientists move from physical measurementsto actual observation of single-cell recordings in the brain. We highlight how easy it is to change the fundamental nature of ourobservations using accepted methodological techniques for manipulatingraw data. Collecting single-cell data is thoroughly pragmatic. Weconclude that there is no deep or interesting difference betweenaccounting for observations by measurements and accounting forobservations by theories.

Preoccupation with LTP as a putative memory mechanism may have retarded the consideration of pathological modulation of synaptic plasticity in clinical disorders where memory dysfunction is not a primary feature. Encouraged by Shors & Matzel's review, we consider the relationship between stress, synaptic plasticity, and depressive disorder.

Why an encyclopedia of the philosophy of religion? Because human beings have been and continue to be religious. Indeed, if one thinks in terms of what it is to be human, what is the essence of a human being, one can reasonably hold that it includes the property of trying to make sense of things and events, and religion, in terms of both belief and practice, is a way of doing this. A religious response to this attempt at sense-making in (...) no way implies that those who are not religious are not trying to make sense of things.They are, but conclude that the sought-after intelligibility, if it can be had, can be had without religion. So if one thinks of philosophy as, at least in part, a rational pursuit of intelligibility about things and events, then the philosophy of religion can plausibly be construed as the pursuit of this intelligibility in religious terms, and an encyclopedia of philosophy of religion as an orderly assemblage of entries about this rational undertaking. While the philosophy of religion has often been thought of as a "Western" activity which is engaged in by those in the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), from the inception of this project we have believed it is important to think globally in terms of the scope of entries included in the encyclopedia. Hence, there are not only numerous entries on topics and individuals within the Abrahamic religious traditions, but also equally numerous entries on issues and people in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and other religious traditions.We have sought to be diverse in terms of the inclusion of entries across the religious world, not because we believe diversity and inclusion are goods in their own right, but because they are instrumental to helping us think more clearly about the overall intellectual project of making sense of things in terms of religion. Some persons might object that because the idea of making sense of things is a rational notion and religion, when properly understood, is at its core a rejection of the notion that things and events are intelligible, the philosophy of religion is itself a deeply incoherent intellectual discipline. Indeed, if we assume a desire tomake sense of things, the attempt to fulfill this desire along with perhaps its eventual frustration is a source of suffering. And who wants to suffer? Thus religion at its core is about giving up on the attempt to make sense of things and to achieve a state of "mind" in which there is nothingness or oneness with all things and, as a result, nothing distinct from other things of which to make sense. While this point is well made and appreciated, it nevertheless is also a fact that anyone reading one or more of the entries in this encyclopedia of the philosophy of religion is a person who is seeking to learn about, and thus make sense of, something or someone related to a particular religion or religions. So at least to this degree the reader is an individual who is pursuing intelligibility about that which is religious, or related to what is religious, in nature. And an initial assumption that the attempt to satisfy the desire for intelligibility through religion must fail and produce suffering is at least questionable. Finally, because this is an encyclopedia of the philosophy of religion, there are many entries about views and peoplewho believe that there are good reasons to reject religion altogether. These entries are warranted because the issues and people they cover occupy an important place in the dialogue that takes place between individuals with differing views who live in a shared global space. (shrink)

Over the past decade, there has been a growing interest among analytic philosophers in life's meaning, but this surge of work is nearly all by naturalists theorizing from non-theistic starting points. To answer the need for a theistic philosophical perspective, God and Meaning features leading thinkers in analytic philosophy of religion and theology exploring important issues in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and biblical theology that intersect with life's meaning.

In a recent paper, John Fischer develops a new argument against the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) based on a deterministic scenario. Fischer uses this result (i) to rebut the Dilemma Defense - a well-known incompatibilist response to Frankfurt-type counterexamples to PAP; and (ii) to maintain that: If causal determinism rules out moral responsibility, it is not just in virtue of eliminating alternative possibilities. In this article, we argue that Fischer's new argument against PAP fails, thus leaving points (i) and (...) (ii) unsupported. (shrink)

This book is a clear and concise history of the soul in western philosophy, from Plato to cutting-edge contemporary work in philosophy of mind. Packed with arguments for and against a range of different, historically significant philosophies of the soul Addresses the essential issues, including mind-body interaction, the causal closure of the physical world, and the philosophical implications of the brain sciences for the soul's existence Includes coverage of theories from key figures, such as Plato, Aquinas, Locke, Hume, and Descartes (...) Unique in combining the history of ideas and the development of a powerful case for a non-reductionist, non-materialist account of the soul. (shrink)