Religion

I find the philosophy of religion immensely interesting. Recently I watched a YouTube video in which a well known Christian philosopher/theologian, William Lane Craig, explained how the Anglo-American world had been "utterly transformed" and had undergone a "renaissance of Christian philosophy" since the 1960s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=902MJirWkdM&feature=related [starts at around the 7:40 mark]). Do you agree with these statements? Moreover, how well respected is Dr. Craig? Is he generally viewed as a top notch philosopher? I also wonder whether the very best arguments on the atheistic side are really being discussed. It seems there is some disdain among philosophers regarding the so-called "new atheists": Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. Who are the top contemporary atheists working in philosophy today? I'd really be interested in reading some of their work. I would really appreciate multiple perspectives on these questions. Thanks a lot.

Comments

You ask for multiple perspectives: so let me start the ball rolling.

"Who are the top contemporary atheists working in philosophy today?" Maybe it's because I'm working in England which is a pretty irreligious country, but most of the good philosophers I know well enough to have any clue about their religious views are cheerful atheists for whom religion just doesn't feature in their lives (except when dingbat religious fundamentalists of one stripe or another cause public mayhem). And most of these philosophers aren't very interested in religion as a philosophical issue (they might casually wonder what it is about us which makes our minds prone to gripped by supernatural stories of one kind or another, but they don't think the supposed philosophical arguments for taking such stories to be true are worth wasting much time over). So most of the "top atheists working in philosophy today" round my neck of the woods aren't working in the philosophy of religion but are getting on with what they think is the serious stuff.

Occasionally, public-spirited atheistic philosophers will have a bash at spelling out the arguments. John Mackie's The Miracle of Theism is a modern classic (the miracle is that anyone is a theist, given the weight of considerations against). Robin LePoidevin wrote a good introductory book Arguing for Atheism a few years ago. In 2008, Louise Antony (a panelist here) edited a quite terrific collection of essays Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life (if, from an English perspective, I have a slight complaint about that book, it's only that it overdoes the seriousness -- there's not enough mockery of the sheerly ludicrous aspects of religions). And then of course there's Dan Dennett's wonderful Breaking the Spell.

So the philosophical atheists haven't been entirely silent. But it does seem that much philosophy of religion is being written noisily by people with religious axes to grind (such indeed as William Lane Craig). When I've dipped into that stuff, I've thought it either badly argued or starting from premisses we haven't much reason to believe or both: so my impression is that, if the world of Christian philosophy has been "utterly transformed" of late, it is largely a matter of quantity rather than quality. But I am, like most of my colleagues, too unimpressed/too lazy/short of time to bother to really get to grips with it.*

*Though I did a couple of years ago bash away at length on my blog at a recent intro to the philosophy of religion by Murray and Rea: backtrack through http://www.logicmatters.net/category/religion/

This isn't going to be a response from a different perspective from Peter Smith's, but I have a little information to add. First of all, William Lane Craig has debated a lot of philosophers over the last fifteen or so years, including a couple of the contributors to Philosophers Without Gods (Edwin Curley, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and myself). I won't try to give the roster for fear of offending someone I've left out -- but you can find some transcripts of some of the debates on Craig's website: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html (Mine didn't make the cut! If you're interested, you can watch it through the Veritas Forum: http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/639) . Craig's debate with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong became a book: God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist (Oxford University Press) and Sinnott-Armstrong has another book on the relation between religion and ethics: Morality Without God (also Oxford). Robert Garcia and Nathan King edited a book focused on the debate between Craig and Paul Kurtz, called Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? (Rowman and Littlefield). (Full disclosure: I have an essay in there)

I don't know about renaissances (renaissanci?), but I would hardly say that the Anglo-American world has been "transformed" by anything that's happened in philosophy during Craig's or my lifetime. One thing that has been happening recently that may be a good thing -- it is from my point of view, anyway -- is that Christian philosophers and atheist philosophers are talking to each other. I think that Dr. Craig can take some credit for that development. Robert Garcia and Nat King can, too. I recently attended a conference at Notre Dame devoted to the question whether the God of the Tenach (what Christians call the "Old Testament") is morally good. I was one of three atheists invited to speak -- Ed Curley and Evan Fales being the others -- and although we were vastly outnumbered, I was most gratified by the reception we received. None of us pulled any punches, but we were still greeted with respectful questions and constructive criticisms. I don't think any minds were changed regarding the metaphysical facts, but I do think some stereotypes were smashed, and some atheist-Christian friendships were formed. The conference papers and commentaries have been collected into a book by the conference organizers, Michaels Rea, Murray, and Murphy.

I can't finish my list of credits without mentioning my once-colleague, Michael Martin, who is now Professor Emeritus at Boston University. He's been writing on atheism for many years, long before it was "in." See, for example, his Atheism, Morality, and Meaning (Prometheus)

Oh, and thanks for the plug, Peter!

It is probably fair to say that William Lane Craig (WLC) is making an overstatement. But, the truth that he is overstating is that in the mid-20th century Anglo-American philosophy there was little or no influential new work in Christian philosophy and now there is quite a bit, including some that is published by the most reputable secular academic presses. To cite just a few examples consider: Richard Swinburne's The Existence of God & The Coherence of Theism (both by Oxford University Press(OUP)), Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief (OUP) & God and Other Minds (Cornell UP), Nicholas Wolterstorff's Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge UP), William Alston's Perceiving God (Cornell UP), Eleonore Stump's Reasoned Faith (Cornell UP), and Alexander Pruss's The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment (Cambridge UP).

Oxford and Cambridge University Presses are largely viewed as the two most respected publishers of philosophy in general and Cornell University Press is largely acknowledged as a top press in philosophy of religion. So, even though the philosophical world may not have been 'utterly transformed' I find it easy to agree with WLC that there is a lot more Christian philosophy being done than in the mid-20th century and that much of it is being accepted by the very best academic presses as respectable philosophical work.

Note that WLC's claim also has to do with areas besides philosophy of religion. There are philosophers developing comprehensive distinctly Christian projects in areas like metaphysics (Dean Zimmerman comes to mind) and ethics (where Alasdair MacIntyre has been quite influential). Although I hesitate to include my own work along with that of these more influential thinkers, some of my own work might be viewed as a 'distinctly Christian ethical project.' For example, my book on The Prudence of Love advocates an account of the virtue of love developed from the views of Aquinas. However, I go on to demonstrate that possessing this virtue of love is beneficial to the lover on all major views of happiness (including very secular views). Projects like these are far more common today than they were in the mid-twentieth century.

Dr. Craig has written or edited about thirty books and over a hundred articles. He is the only theist with a chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. His work on the Kalam cosmological argument and Molinism is excellent. Yet, much of his work is published by less rigorous venues and he has not published much in the top academic presses mentioned above. So, I'd say that he's generally viewed as a good philosopher, though perhaps not as good as those I've listed above.

One atheist who doesn't get as much attention as he should is William Rowe who has excellent books on the Problem of Evil and the Cosmological Argument. And as others have mentioned, JL Mackie's Miracle of Theism is top notch.

I actually think Craig is right: the philosophy of religion in the Anglophone world is booming,if you consider publications in the top presses (Oxford, Cambridge, Blackwell, Routledge), conferences and organizations --the British Society of Philosophy of Religion in the UK is very well subscribed to and the Society of Christian Philosophers in the USA is the largest society in the American Philosohical Association. Many presidents of the APA and officers in the APA have been SCP members: Phil Quinn, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, R.M. Adams, etc. I suggest that the case for theism, like the case for atheism and agnosticism, has never been more vigorously developed. Check out the current Blackwell companion to natural theology and the magisterial Oxford companion to natural theology,forthcoming next year. There will be a Routledge Companion to Theism also out in 2011. My colleagues mention William Rowe and the late J.L. Mackie, both very fine philosophers. But I would pair Mackie with Richard Swinburne (a theist) and if you read Rowe, you might also read Alvin Plantinga. I believe the philosophy of religion is the second most frequently requested course in the USA (based on an APA report some time ago) and I believe (from a friend at Oxford) it is the most frequently chosen area of philosophy to write on for undergraduates at Oxford. Philosophers without God is an interesting book (I reviewed it critically in Philosophia Christi) but you might read it along side of Philosophers who Believe. When I began graduate study of philosophy in 1975, philosophy of religion was being re-discovered but still marginal. That has totally changed in the states and organizations like the British Society for Philosophy of Religion is a sign that matters have shifted in the UK.

PS to the last positing. Here are just some of the theists who are active in the UK or are recently retired, who have impecable credentials philosophically:

Oxford: Daniel Robinson, Brian Leftow, Tim Mawson, Brian Davies (now at Fordham), Keith Ward (now in London but formerly Christ Church), R.M. Adams and Marilyn Adams (just moved to UNC -Chapel Hill). Still affiliated with Oxford but retired Richard Swinburne, John Lucas, Michael Dummett, Basil Mitchell. John Foster died about two years ago, but he was a brilliant philosopher of the first rank, the leading exponent of idealism and a theist.

Cambridge: Douglas Hedley, Brian Hebblethwaite, Sarah Coakley (I believe she is now in Cambridge, but not positive), Janet Soskice, others...

John Cottingham (Reading), John Haldane (St. Andrews), Mark Wynn (Exeter), Victoria Harrison (Glasgow), Tim Chappell (Open University), Daniel Hill, and many more.

Also, one should bear in mind that there are more categories than "cheerful atheists" and "cheerful theists": there are some very prominant agnostics in the UK, probably the most well known is Sir Anthony Kenny (affiliated with Oxford). He is the greatest living historian of philosophy and categorically rejects atheism. He is not a theist, but he has defened the coherence of theism and regards it as a live position.

Read another response by Peter Smith, Louise Antony, Eric Silverman, Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Religion