In Minimal Theologies Hent de Vries offers a revision of his German language edition of Theologie im pianissimo published in 1989. There has been an impressive amount of scholarly work on Adorno and Levinas since 1989, “but this literature pays no attention to a systematic confrontation between their respective philosophical projects, if it mentions their names in conjunction at all”. What his work contributes is an analysis of the works of Adorno and Levinas as being focused on a common project. (...) That project is the exploration of “native modalities of the performative contradiction of argumentative discourse as it seeks to come to terms with its other”. Further, he contrasts these with the later Habermas and early Derrida. This is a meticulous work that provides important insights into these thinkers and religious philosophy. It is directed at a scholarly audience and could be of use in a graduate seminar focusing either on these thinkers or on contemporary issues surrounding the relationship between faith and reason. (shrink)

After the challenges of the Enlightenment from philosophers such as David Hume, contemporary philosophers of religion tend to think that proof is not possible and that at best humans have arguments for the probability or plausibility of belief in God. But, Christianity maintains that humans should know God. This book explores attempts to respond to the Enlightenment challenges by thinkers at Princeton Theological like Benjamin Warfield. It considers Warfield's view of reason and knowledge of God, his debate with Abraham Kuyper, (...) and the attempt to reconcile differences between these two by Cornelius Van Til. It also considers Reformed Epistemology, which has become popular in recent decades and is credited for a renewed interest in Christian philosophy. (shrink)

Audi’s first chapter offers an informative history of intuitionist theories from the last century. The task of the intuitionist is to show that some basic moral truths are noninferentially known. What Audi specifically wants to do is develop Ross’s position in a way that addresses its critics and yet keeps the ability to be responsive to everyday life. The three main challenges to Ross are that there is widespread disagreement about which principles count as being self-evident, the incommensurability problem that (...) arises from positing irreducibly different kinds of moral grounds for action, and the charge of dogmatism on the part of intuitionists by those who do not intuitively arrive at the same guidelines for moral conduct. Audi offers strong responses to these challenges, but his position remains unconvincing because behind the intuitionist approach is the assumption that human intuitions are morally ideal as opposed to fallen and corrupted. Hence, even if the intuitionists can address the three standard challenges to their position, this does not prove that human moral intuitions are as they should be. (shrink)

Machine generated contents note: 1. The postmodern challenge: from modernity to postmodernity; 2. Traditional natural law: differences in Aristotle and Aquinas; 3. Patterns in historical thinking about the good; 4. The challenge of modernity: religious wars and the need for universal law; 5. The challenges of naturalism: legal realism or natural law; 6. Objectivity without a metaphysical foundation; 7. Contemporary natural law: practical rationality and legal opinions; 8. Natural law as a theory with metaphysical baggage: postmodern law; 9. Natural law (...) as the moral law; 10. Natural moral law in a postmodern world. (shrink)

In ‘The Presuppositions of Religious Pluralism and the Need for Natural Theology’ I argue that there are four important presuppositions behind John Hick’s form of religious pluralism that successfully support it against what I call fideistic exclusivism. These are i) the ought/can principle, ii) the universality of religious experience, iii) the universality of redemptive change, and iv) a view of how God (the Eternal) would do things. I then argue that if these are more fully developed they support a different (...) kind of exclusivism, what I call rational exclusivism, and become defeaters for pluralism. In order to explain rational exclusivism and its dependence on these presuppositions I consider philosophers J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga, who offer arguments for their forms of exclusivism but I maintain that they continue to rely on fideism at important points. I then give an example of how knowledge of the Eternal can be achieved. (shrink)

The central assumption behind James’s project, which is noted in many of the essays, is that religious knowledge is not possible. This assumption shapes the approach James takes, and limits the possible conclusions he can reach. It was an assumption shared by William Clifford, who is the chief target of James’s The Will to Believe. However, James goes in a different direction than Clifford. James agrees that religious knowledge is not possible, and yet asserts that religious experiences are useful. His (...) hypothesis is that while religious experience does not provide knowledge, it can be the cause of beneficial effects in a person’s life. His focus on results or effects is an important part of his pragmatism, and seems to grow out of his assumption that religious knowledge is not possible. It is the combination of making religious experience an object of scientific inquiry and a pragmatic assessment of religious experience that makes James unique during his time. (shrink)