Details

<p>Notes on Contributors ix</p> <p>Preface to the First Edition xv</p> <p>Preface to the Second Edition xvii</p> <p>Acknowledgements xix</p> <p><b>Arguments for Religious Belief 1</b></p> <p><b>1 Does the Universe Have a Cause? 3</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: The Universe Has a Cause 3<br /> <i>Robert C. Koons</i></p> <p>Negative Position: The Universe Does Not Have a Cause 13<br /> <i>Graham Oppy</i></p> <p>Reply to <i>Oppy</i> 22</p> <p>Reply to <i>Koons</i> 24</p> <p><b>2 Is Fine‐Tuning Evidence that God Exists? 27</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Fine‐Tuning is Evidence that God Exists 27<br /> <i>Robin Collins</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Fine‐Tuning is Not Evidence that God Exists 37<br /> <i>Elliott Sober</i></p> <p>Reply to Sober 48</p> <p>Reply to Collins 50</p> <p><b>3 Is God Necessary for Morality? 55</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: God is Necessary for Morality 55<br /> <i>Mark D. Linville</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Atheism, Naturalism, and Morality 66<br /> <i>Louise Antony</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Antony</i> 79</p> <p>Reply to<i> Linville</i> 81</p> <p><b>4 Does Religious Experience Justify Religious Belief ? 85</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Religious Experience Justifies Religious Belief 85<br /> <i>William P. Alston</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Do Mystics See God? 94<br /> <i>Evan Fales</i></p> <p>Reply to Fales 106</p> <p>Reply to Alston 110</p> <p><b>5 Does Testimony about Miracles Provide Evidence for Religion? 113</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: The Case for Miracles 113<br /> <i>Charity Anderson and Alexander Pruss</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Testimony about Miracles Does Not Provide Evidence 123<br /> <i>Arif Ahmed</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Ahmed</i> 132</p> <p>Reply to<i> Anderson</i> and <i>Pruss</i> 134</p> <p><b>Challenges to Religious Belief 137</b></p> <p><b>6 Is Evil Evidence against Belief in God? 139</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Evil is Evidence against God’s Existence 139<br /> <i>William L. Rowe</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Evil Does Not Make Atheism More Reasonable Than Theism 148<br /> <i>Daniel Howard-Snyder and Michael Bergmann</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Howard‐Snyder</i> and<i> Bergmann</i> 160</p> <p>Reply to<i> Rowe</i> 162</p> <p><b>7 Does Divine Hiddenness Justify Atheism? 165</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Divine Hiddenness Justifies Atheism 165<br /> <i>J. L. Schellenberg</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Divine Hiddenness Does Not Justify Atheism 176<br /> <i>Paul K. Moser</i></p> <p>Reply to <i>Moser</i> 187</p> <p>Reply to <i>Schellenberg</i> 189</p> <p><b>8 Does Science Discredit Religion? 193</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Science Discredits Religion 193<br /> <i>Michael Ruse</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Science Does Not Discredit Religion 202<br /> <i>Michael L. Peterson</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Peterson</i> 212</p> <p>Reply to<i> Ruse</i> 214</p> <p><b>9 Is the God of the Hebrew Bible Perfectly Good? 219</b></p> <p>Negative Position: The God of Ancient Israel is Not Perfectly Good 219<br /> <i>Wes Morriston</i></p> <p>Affirmative Position: The Perfect Goodness of God in the Hebrew Scriptures 229<br /> <i>Mark C. Murphy</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Murphy</i> 238</p> <p>Reply to<i> Morriston</i> 240</p> <p><b>10 Is it Reasonable to Believe That Only One Religion is True? 243</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: It is Reasonable to Believe That Only One Religion is True 243<br /> <i>David Basinger</i></p> <p>Negative Position: It is Not Reasonable to Believe That Only One Religion is True 252<br /> <i>Peter Byrne</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Byrne</i> 261</p> <p>Reply to<i> Basinger</i> 264</p> <p><b>Issues Within Religion 267</b></p> <p><b>11 Is Evidence Required for Religious Belief ? 269</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Evidence is Required for Religious Belief 269<br /> <i>Blake McAllister</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Evidence is Not Required for Religious Belief 279<br /> <i>Raymond J. VanArragon</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> VanArragon</i> 287</p> <p>Reply to<i> McAllister</i> 290</p> <p><b>12 Should we Think of God as Masculine? 293</b></p> <p>Negative Position A: Is God a Man? 293<br /> <i>Michael Rea</i></p> <p>Negative Position B: God is Not Male 302<br /> <i>Kathryn Pogin</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Pogin</i> 310</p> <p>Reply to<i> Rea</i> 312</p> <p><b>13 Does God Take Risks in Governing the World? 317</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: God Takes Risks 317<br /> <i>William Hasker</i></p> <p>Negative Position: God Does Not Take Risks 326<br /> <i>Paul Helm</i></p> <p>Reply to <i>Helm</i> 335</p> <p>Reply to <i>Hasker</i> 337</p> <p><b>14 Should Christians Endorse Mind‐Body Dualism? 341</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Christians Should Affirm Mind‐Body Dualism 341<br /> <i>Dean W. Zimmerman</i></p> <p>Negative Position: Christians Should Reject Mind‐Body Dualism 353<br /> <i>Lynne Rudder Baker</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Baker</i> 363</p> <p>Reply to<i> Zimmerman</i> 366</p> <p><b>15 Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Concept of God? 369</b></p> <p>Affirmative Position: Eternal Hell and the Christian Concept of God 369<br /> <i>Jerry L. Walls</i></p> <p>Negative Position: No Hell 379<br /> <i>Thomas Talbott</i></p> <p>Reply to<i> Talbott</i> 387</p> <p>Reply to<i> Walls</i> 388</p> <p>Index 391</p>

<p><b>Michael L. Peterson</b> is Professor of Philosophy at Asbury Theological Seminary. He has written and edited numerous books, and is the general editor of the Wiley Blackwell <i>Exploring Philosophy of Religion</i> series. His research focuses on the philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, the problem of evil, and the science-religion relationship. <p><b>Raymond J. VanArragon</b> is Professor of Philosophy at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. He is the author of <i>Key Terms in Philosophy of Religion</i> (2010), and his work focuses on epistemology and the philosophy of religion.

<p><b>Must religious belief be based on evidence? Is God necessary for morality? Does science discredit religion?</b> <p>Building upon the reputation of the first edition, the extensively revised second edition of <i>Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion</i> features fifteen essays which present arguments on some of the most central and controversial topics in philosophy of religion from the discipline's most influential thinkers. Considering questions of both emerging and perennial interest from atheistic, theistic, and agnostic viewpoints, the book adopts the series structure which pairs essays espousing opposing perspectives on a particular question or theme in an engaging pro and con format. <p>Following accessible introductions to each debate, the volume's new and newly-revised contributions set the stage for thoughtful and lively discourse between philosophers in philosophy of religion and analytic theology. Debates range from vigorous disagreements between theists and their critics to arguments between theists of different philosophical and theological persuasions, highlighting points of contrast for readers while showcasing the field's leading minds in dialogue. The head-to-head chapters offer forceful advocacy for some of the most compelling ideas, beliefs, and objections in the philosophy of religion, opening the conversation up to students to weigh the arguments and engage in comparative analysis of the concepts for themselves. <p>Written to appeal to the non-specialist as well as the professional philosopher, <i>Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion</i> is ideal as both a provocative primary text for coursework in analytical theology and philosophy of religion, and as a broad survey of the field for scholars and general readers with an interest in the questions which underpin contemporary philosophy of religion and theology.

US