Can Philosophy of Religion Find God? | Episode 1206 | Closer To Truth

Summary

This script explores the philosophical inquiry into the existence and nature of God, delving into the Philosophy of Religion. It discusses the role of philosophy in examining and justifying religious beliefs, the problem of evil, and the rationality of belief in God without empirical evidence. The dialogue with various philosophers, including Alvin Plantinga and Eleonore Stump, highlights different approaches to understanding God, from analytical arguments to personal experiences and the importance of critical examination in refining or affirming one's faith.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The script explores the existence and nature of God, questioning whether a supreme being exists and what it could be like.
• 📚 It delves into the discipline of Philosophy of Religion, which is the philosophical examination of questions related to God's existence and attributes.
• 💡 Philosophy of Religion is controversial and divisive, yet it is seen as a useful tool for serious believers to understand and defend their beliefs.
• 👤 The script introduces Alvin Plantinga, a leading philosopher of religion, who argues that belief in God can be rational and warranted without traditional 'proofs'.
• 🧐 It discusses the argument from evil, questioning how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God can coexist with evil and suffering in the world.
• 🤨 The script addresses the criticism that theistic belief may not be rational or reasonable due to a perceived lack of evidence or cogent arguments for God's existence.
• 🙏 It considers the role of belief in God as a natural human condition, akin to belief in other minds or the past, potentially hardwired into us by God or evolution.
• 🔄 The argument is made that belief in God may be warranted if it is true, and the only way to know it lacks warrant is to know God does not exist, which we cannot.
• 🌐 The script highlights the importance of both analytical and experiential approaches to understanding God, suggesting that personal experience is as crucial as rational argumentation.
• 📖 It contrasts analytic and continental philosophy in the context of religious study, with the former focusing on clarification and proof of God's existence and the latter on the believer's inner life.
• 🤝 The value of philosophy in religion is recognized in its ability to complement religious understanding, whether one is a theist or an atheist, by contributing to the clarification of religious issues.

Q & A

What is the main topic of discussion in the video script?

The main topic of the video script is the existence of God and the role of philosophy in examining questions related to God's existence and nature.

What is the 'Philosophy of Religion'?

The 'Philosophy of Religion' is a discipline that applies philosophical methods and principles to explore questions about God, religious experience, and the nature of religious truth.

Why is the Philosophy of Religion considered controversial and divisive?

The Philosophy of Religion is considered controversial and divisive because it deals with deeply held beliefs and seeks to analyze and critique religious doctrines, which can challenge or conflict with traditional religious views.

What is Alvin Plantinga's contribution to the discussion about God's existence?

Alvin Plantinga contributes to the discussion by offering a new way to justify belief in God without relying on traditional 'proofs of God'. He argues that belief in God is warranted if it is true and that one cannot sensibly argue against the warrant of such belief without first proving God's non-existence.

What is the 'Argument from Evil' and how does it relate to the belief in God?

The 'Argument from Evil' is a philosophical problem that questions how an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God can coexist with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. It challenges the traditional conception of God.

What does the script suggest about the relationship between belief in God and rationality?

The script suggests that belief in God can be rational even without evidence or argument, comparing it to other beliefs that people hold without evidence, such as the belief in other minds or the past.

What is the concept of 'warrant' in the context of belief in God?

In the context of belief in God, 'warrant' refers to the justification or rational basis for a belief, distinguishing it from a mere lucky guess or an unsupported true belief.

How does Eleonore Stump approach the Philosophy of Religion?

Eleonore Stump approaches the Philosophy of Religion by emphasizing the importance of personal experience and the idea that to truly know God, one must experience God in a personal and direct way, beyond just intellectual understanding.

What is the difference between 'Analytic' and 'Continental' philosophy as mentioned in the script?

Analytic philosophy, common in America and England, focuses on clarifying concepts and providing arguments for the existence of God. Continental philosophy, more prevalent in Europe, deals with the inner life of the believer and the phenomenology of religious experiences.

What is the role of philosophy in the Jewish tradition according to Rabbi David Shatz?

According to Rabbi David Shatz, in the Jewish tradition, philosophy has been seen as a way to clarify religious concepts, prove the existence of God, and engage with heretics. It is also tied to the idea of love of God and making the knowledge of God's existence an actual knowledge.

What is Michael Tooley's perspective on the relationship between philosophy and religious belief?

Michael Tooley, an atheist philosopher, believes that philosophy can illuminate religion by encouraging critical scrutiny of basic beliefs and values. He suggests that this process can lead to a more satisfying and likely true formulation of religious views or potentially to the abandonment of one's religion.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Philosophical Inquiry into God's Existence and Nature

The speaker expresses a deep curiosity about the existence and characteristics of God, emphasizing the role of philosophy in disciplined thinking. They introduce the field of 'philosophy of religion' as a means to explore questions about God, whether affirmative or negative. The speaker, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, discusses the controversial and divisive nature of this field and its potential to find God, highlighting the importance of engaging with leading philosophers like Alvin Plantinga. The paragraph also touches on the skepticism from believers who may see philosophy as overly intellectualizing and trivializing religion, but the speaker argues for the utility of philosophy in understanding religious beliefs and responding to objections against theistic belief, such as the argument from evil and the rationality of belief in God without evidence.

05:00

🧐 The Rationality and Justification of Belief in God

This paragraph delves into the rationality and justification of belief in God, contrasting beliefs that require evidence with those that do not. It discusses the assumption that belief in God necessitates argument or evidence and challenges this by comparing it to beliefs in other minds or the past, which are typically accepted without proof. The speaker questions why belief in God should be held to a different standard and explores the idea that belief in God might be a natural, hard-wired human tendency, reflecting on the majority of the world's population believing in a higher power. The paragraph also examines the potential consequences of believing in God without arguments, such as accusations of intellectual irresponsibility, irrationality, or lacking warrant, and counters these with philosophical reasoning, suggesting that belief in God could be warranted if it is true and if our cognitive faculties are functioning as designed by a creator.

10:01

🔄 The Circularity of Warrant and Truth in Belief in God

The speaker explores Alvin Plantinga's argument regarding the warrant and truth of belief in God, which posits that belief in God is warranted if and only if it is true. This idea suggests that to undermine the warrant of belief in God, one must first prove that God does not exist, a task that is argued to be impossible. The paragraph discusses the potential circularity in this reasoning, but clarifies that the focus is on the justification of belief, not the existence of God. It emphasizes that belief in God is justified based on the possibility of God's existence creating humans with an innate sense to believe in Him, and that without God, such belief would not be warranted. The discussion highlights the philosophical challenge of distinguishing between knowledge and mere true belief, and how this applies to the belief in a divine being.

15:03

🌟 The Personal and Experiential Aspects of Knowing God

The paragraph introduces a different perspective on the philosophy of religion through a conversation with Eleonore Stump, emphasizing the personal and experiential knowledge of God. It contrasts the analytical approach of understanding God's attributes with the experiential knowledge gained through a personal relationship or encounter with the divine. The speaker uses the analogy of getting to know someone significant in their child's life, highlighting that hearing about them is not the same as meeting them face-to-face. The paragraph suggests that while philosophy provides a deep and enriching understanding, it is the personal experience that truly allows one to 'know' God, reflecting on the Psalmist's advice to 'taste and see' the goodness of God.

20:05

📚 The Analytic and Continental Approaches to Philosophy of Religion

This paragraph discusses the two main avenues in the study of religion: the analytic school, prevalent in America and England, and the continental philosophy, more common in Europe. The analytic approach is characterized by its focus on clarifying religious concepts, such as God's omnipotence and omniscience, and addressing potential conflicts with religious doctrines. It also delves into the philosophical endeavor to prove the existence of God, particularly within the Jewish tradition, where it is considered a religious obligation. The paragraph contrasts this with continental philosophy, which explores the inner life of the believer and the phenomenology of religious experiences. The speaker meets Rabbi David Shatz to understand these different approaches and their implications for religious understanding and practice.

25:07

💭 The Value of Philosophy in Refining and Critiquing Religious Beliefs

The speaker engages with Michael Tooley, a philosopher of religion who is an atheist, to explore the value of philosophy in illuminating religion. Tooley argues that philosophy can help religious believers subject their fundamental beliefs to critical scrutiny, potentially leading to a more satisfying or intellectually coherent religious outlook, or even to the abandonment of their initial beliefs. The paragraph discusses the Socratic idea that an unexamined life is not worth living and applies this to religious beliefs, suggesting that philosophical examination can clarify and strengthen faith or lead to its refinement. It also touches on the philosophical perspective that beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence, contrasting this with the emphasis on faith in religion, and the importance of critically evaluating religious experiences.

🛡 The Defense of Philosophical Engagement with Religious Beliefs

In the final paragraph, the speaker reflects on their appreciation for the philosophy of religion and its role in clarifying religious issues. They reject the notion that philosophical thinking diminishes religious fervor, arguing that if the fervor is not based on reality, it should be discarded. The speaker respects those who claim to 'know God' or who believe without evidence or argument but acknowledges that this is not their personal approach. They express a commitment to seeking truth and a willingness to be wrong in this pursuit, highlighting the importance of intellectual honesty and open-mindedness in understanding religion.

Keywords

💡God

God is a central concept in monotheistic religions and is often considered the supreme being, creator, and ultimate reality. In the video's context, the existence and nature of God are the focal points of philosophical inquiry, with discussions on whether belief in God is rational or if it requires evidence or argumentation to be justified.

💡Philosophy of Religion

Philosophy of Religion is the study of the rationality, nature, and existence of God through philosophical methods. It is highlighted in the video as a discipline that can both illuminate and challenge religious beliefs. The video explores how philosophy can be used to critically examine and justify beliefs about God.

💡Belief in God

Belief in God refers to the acceptance that a supreme being exists, often based on faith rather than empirical evidence. The video discusses the controversy surrounding this belief, the role of evidence in justifying such a belief, and the philosophical arguments for and against it.

💡Arguments from Evil

Arguments from Evil are philosophical objections to the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God, based on the presence of evil and suffering in the world. The video mentions this argument as a challenge to theistic belief, questioning how a benevolent God can coexist with the world's pain.

💡Rational Belief

Rational Belief denotes a conviction that is held based on reason or evidence. The video script delves into whether belief in God can be rational without supporting arguments or evidence, contrasting it with beliefs that are commonly held without needing justification.

💡Warrant

Warrant, in the context of the video, refers to the justification or validation for a belief, distinguishing knowledge from mere true belief or lucky guesses. The discussion revolves around whether belief in God has warrant, given that it may be a natural belief for humans, possibly hardwired by a divine creator.

💡Hardwired Belief

Hardwired Belief suggests that certain beliefs are innate or instinctual, potentially placed in humans by a creator or through evolutionary processes. The video explores the possibility that belief in God might be such a hardwired belief, explaining the prevalence of religious faith across cultures.

💡Philosophical Argument

A Philosophical Argument in the script refers to a line of reasoning used to justify or critique a belief or position. The video discusses various philosophical arguments related to the existence of God, the validity of religious belief, and the role of evidence in forming beliefs.

💡Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is a significant issue in Philosophy of Religion that questions how an all-powerful and benevolent God can allow evil and suffering to exist. The video mentions this problem as a philosophical challenge to theistic belief systems.

💡Religious Experience

Religious Experience refers to personal encounters or subjective experiences that are taken to be of divine origin. The video touches on the role of such experiences in the belief in God, and how they might be evaluated for their evidential value.

💡Atheist

An Atheist is an individual who does not believe in the existence of God or gods. The video includes perspectives from atheist philosophers of religion, who contribute to the discourse by critically examining religious beliefs and offering alternative viewpoints.

Highlights

The exploration of God's existence and the nature of a supreme being through the discipline of philosophy of religion.

The controversy and divisiveness within the philosophy of religion and its potential to find evidence of God.

Alvin Plantinga's role in energizing Christian philosophy and the intimidation felt when engaging with his ideas.

The usefulness of philosophy for believers to understand the relationship between religious beliefs and other aspects of their worldview.

The argument from evil, questioning the compatibility of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God with the existence of evil and suffering.

The debate over whether theistic belief requires evidence or argument to be rational, and Plantinga's counterargument about the nature of belief.

Plantinga's distinction between beliefs that require evidence and those that do not, using the example of believing in other people's existence.

The idea that belief in God may be hard-wired into humans, similar to beliefs in the past and other minds.

The challenge to the assumption that belief in God requires arguments, suggesting it might be a natural belief like others we hold without evidence.

Eleonore Stump's perspective on knowing God as a person, emphasizing the experiential aspect of religion over purely analytical approaches.

The contrast between analytical and experiential paths to understanding God, highlighting the value of both理性 and emotional experiences.

Rabbi David Shatz's discussion on the analytic school of philosophy and its focus on clarifying religious concepts, such as God's omnipotence and omniscience.

The potential gap between philosophical and biblical conceptions of God, particularly regarding God's emotions and personality.

The philosophical endeavor to prove God's existence and the debate over whether this leads to a genuine love of God or an abstract understanding.

Michael Tooley's atheistic perspective on the value of philosophy in scrutinizing and refining religious beliefs to ensure they are intellectually satisfying.

The Socratic idea that an unexamined life is not worth living, and the application of critical scrutiny to religious beliefs for a more satisfying understanding.

The question of whether faith is a good thing, especially when it comes to believing in the absence of strong evidence, and the role of philosophy in evaluating this.

The appreciation for philosophers of religion, both theists and atheists, for their contributions to religious understanding and the clarification of issues.

A rejection of the idea that philosophical thinking reduces religious fervor, arguing that true fervor should withstand intellectual scrutiny.

The personal journey of getting closer to truth through philosophy of religion, despite the challenges and the potential for confusion.

Transcripts

I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER GOD EXISTS.

AND IF GOD DOES EXIST, WHAT SUCH A SUPREME BEING COULD

POSSIBLY BE LIKE?

HOW TO EXAMINE SUCH QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD?

BE THEY POSITIVE - THERE IS A GOD.

OR NEGATIVE - THERE IS NO GOD.

I LOVE PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE PHILOSOPHY FORCES ME TO THINK

IN A DISCIPLINED MANNER.

AND WHEN PHILOSOPHY FOCUSES ON QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD,

THE DISCIPLINE IS CALLED "PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION."

BUT, WHY IS PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION SO CONTROVERSIAL?

SO DIVISIVE?

CAN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION FIND GOD?

I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY

TO FIND OUT.

I'M HAUNTED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD - DOES GOD EXIST?

WHAT IS GOD LIKE?

HOW DOES GOD ACT?

THAT'S WHY I ENJOY PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

BUT IT'S DAUNTING.

HOW TO GRASP ITS IDEAS?

WAYS OF THINKING?

WITH TREPIDATION, I REACH FOR THE TOP - A LEADING PHILOSOPHER

OF RELIGION WHO ENERGIZED CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY.

I GO TO NOTRE DAME TO MEET ALVIN PLANTINGA.

I PREPARE FEVERISHLY, I AM INTIMIDATED, NERVOUS, TOO.

I TRY NOT TO SHOW IT.

AL, IN MY QUEST, I HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY ENTRANCED BY THE ROLE

OF PHILOSOPHY IN ILLUMINATING RELIGION.

HOWEVER, I HAVE FRIENDS WHO ARE BELIEVERS WHO WOULD LOOK UPON

PHILOSOPHY, AS SOMETHING THAT IS ALMOST OVERLY INTELLECTUALIZING

AND THEREFORE TRIVIALIZING RELIGION.

I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE THINK THAT ABOUT PHILOSOPHY.

BUT THE FACT IS I THINK PHILOSOPHY IS EXTREMELY USEFUL

FOR SERIOUS BELIEVERS IN GOD.

IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT CAN HELP ONE UNDERSTAND HOW ONE'S

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, HOW TO BELIEVE IN GOD, FOR EXAMPLE, IS

RELATED TO THE REST OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PUT, LET'S SAY, WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT

SCIENCE TOGETHER WITH WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT GOD.

THAT'S, OF COURSE, A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.

THERE HAVE BEEN LOTS OF ARGUMENTS THROWN UP, LOTS OF

OBJECTIONS TO THEISTIC BELIEF OR CHRISTIAN BELIEF.

AND IT'S THE ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY TO

LOOK AT THESE ARGUMENTS AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO THEM AND

RESPOND TO THEM.

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES?

WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ARGUMENT FROM EVIL, THE CLAIM THAT IT

CAN'T BE TRUTH BOTH THAT THERE IS SUCH A PERSON AS GOD WHO IS

ALL POWERFUL AND ALL KNOWING AND ALL GOOD AND ALSO

EVIL, SUFFERING, PAIN.

THERE'S ALSO THE SUGGESTION THAT WHETHER OR NOT THEISTIC

BELIEF IS TRUE.

IT'S NOT RATIONAL OR REASONABLE OR SENSIBLE OR JUSTIFIED OR

INTELLECTUALLY UP TO SNUFF IN SOME WAY OR OTHER.

IT'S SOMETHING DEFECTIVE ABOUT IT.

THERE IS THIS CLAIM, THAT BELIEVING IN GOD ISN'T PROPER OR

ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR IT.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD THEY

SAY AREN'T COGENT.

THEY DON'T REALLY SHOW THAT THERE IS SUCH A PERSON AS GOD.

EVEN IF THEY MAKE IT SO IT'S PROBABLE, THEY DON'T SUPPORT THE

BELIEFS SUFFICIENTLY SO THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT AS

OPPOSED TO SAYING, YEAH, IT COULD BE.

IT'S PRETTY LIKELY.

AND HERE I THINK PHILOSOPHY HAS GOT SOMETHING VERY SENSIBLE TO

SAY ABOUT THIS.

HOW WOULD YOU DEVELOP THAT THOUGHT ?

WELL, THERE ARE LOTS OF BELIEFS WE HOLD SUCH THAT YOU CAN'T HOLD

THEM SENSIBLY WITHOUT HAVING AN ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE FOR THEM.

FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE I BELIEVED THAT THE FIRST PERSON TO CROSS

THE LAND MASS FROM ASIA TO NORTH AMERICA WAS LEFT HANDED.

IT WOULD BE SILLY TO BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT HAVING ANY REASON

OR ANY EVIDENCE FOR IT.

BUT OTHER THINGS WE ALL BELIEVE WITHOUT HAVING

ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE.

FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE.

I SEE YOU SITTING HERE.

HERE'S THIS BODY BEFORE ME LOOKING VARIOUS WAYS AND SO ON.

AND I WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ASSUME THAT THERE'S A PERSON

HERE, SOMEBODY WHO THINKS THINGS, HAS FEELINGS OR HAS

BELIEFS AND SO ON.

I DO THIS AUTOMATICALLY.

I DON'T GIVE AN ARGUMENT.

SO SOME BELIEFS ARE SUCH THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE FOR

THEM TO BE RATIONAL OR REASONABLE OR SENSIBLE.

OTHER BELIEFS ARE SUCH THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE.

AND NOW THE QUESTION IS WHICH OF THESE TWO GROUPS

DOES BELIEF IN GOD FALL INTO?

LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE JUST AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED THAT YOU

CAN'T PROPERLY BELIEVE IN GOD UNLESS YOU HOLD SUCH ARGUMENTS

OR UNLESS THERE ARE SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS.

BUT WHY THINK THAT?

MAYBE BELIEF IN GOD IS LIKE BELIEF IN OTHER MINDS OR BELIEF

IN THE PAST.

IF GOD HAS IN FACT CREATED US, MAYBE HE'S HARD WIRED INTO US

NOT ONLY BELIEF IN THE PAST AND OTHER MINDS, BUT ALSO A BELIEF

IN GOD WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF

THE WORLD'S POPULATION DOES BELIEVE IN GOD OR

SOMETHING LIKE GOD.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT AS IF LET'S SAY THE NATURAL HUMAN CONDITION IS

THAT OF THE SKEPTIC WHO SAYS, WELL, PROVE TO ME

THAT GOD EXISTS.

THEN MAYBE I'LL BELIEVE.

THE NATURAL HUMAN CONDITION INVOLVES TAKING IT FOR GRANTED,

OR AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVING OR AT ANY RATE COMING TO BELIEVE THAT

THERE IS A PERSON LIKE GOD OR SOMETHING LIKE GOD.

ONE COULD SAY THAT THE FACT THAT YOU WANT TO PUT GOD IN THE

CATEGORY OF BELIEVING WITHOUT ARGUMENT IS MOTIVATED BY THE

FACT THAT THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE ARE WEAK.

YOU COULD SAY THAT.

YOU COULD SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT OTHER MINDS ARGUMENTS

THERE ARE PRETTY WEAK TOO.

ONE QUESTION TO ASK IS, WELL, WHAT DO THEY THINK IS WRONG WITH

YOU IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE

ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE?

HERE THERE ARE THREE POSSIBILITIES.

THE FIRST IS THAT YOU'RE BEING IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT YOU'RE NOT

LIVING UP TO YOUR INTELLECTUAL OBLIGATIONS IF YOU BELIEVE IN

SUCH A THING AS GOD WITHOUT HAVING A GOOD ARGUMENT.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE MUCH OF A DECENT ARGUMENT.

IF YOU HAVE A DUTY TO DO SOMETHING AND THEN IF YOU DON'T

DO IT, YOU'RE CULPABLE IN SOME WAY, IT MUST BE THAT IT'S UP TO

YOU WHETHER YOU DO THAT THING OR NOT.

BUT THAT ISN'T THE WAY IT IS WITH OUR BELIEFS FOR

THE MOST PART.

IF I THOUGHT I WAS SAY THIRTY YEARS YOUNGER AND VERY HANDSOME,

I'D PROBABLY BE A LOT HAPPIER.

BUT, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS WITH US.

BELIEF IN GOD, MY GUESS IS, FOR MOST PEOPLE IS LIKE THAT TOO.

IT'S NOT THAT IT'S SOMETHING VOLUNTARILY ADOPTED AND CAN BE

VOLUNTARILY GOT RID OF.

SO IF BELIEF IN GOD ISN'T REALLY UP TO ME SO TO SPEAK, WITHIN MY

POWER TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE, THEN I CAN HARDLY BE GOING

CONTRARY TO SOME DUTY IN FACT BELIEVING.

SECOND ARGUMENT.

THE SECOND SUGGESTION IS THAT YOU'RE BEING IRRATIONAL.

NOW, WHAT IS IRRATIONALITY?

SO YOU'RE BEING RATIONAL, YOU'RE BELIEVING RATIONALLY, WHEN

YOU'RE REASON, WHEN YOUR MIND, YOUR INTELLECT, IS FUNCTIONING

PROPERLY, THERE ISN'T ANY SORT OF DYSFUNCTION.

MAYBE YOU CAN HAVE FIXED IDEAS, FOR EXAMPLE.

YOU SAY YOU FIND YOURSELF FIXATED ON SOME THOUGHT, YOU

THINK IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THAT'S IRRATIONAL.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT BELIEF IN GOD WITHOUT AN ARGUMENT?

IS THAT IRRATIONAL IN THAT WAY?

SURELY NOT.

AGAIN, MOST OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION, BELIEVES IN GOD OR

SOMETHING LIKE GOD.

AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE ON THE

BASIS OF ARGUMENTS.

SO IT'S NOT IRRATIONAL EITHER.

SO I SAID ALL THESE THREE POSSIBILITIES.

THE THIRD ONE IS THIS.

IT MIGHT BE THAT BELIEF IN GOD LACKS THAT PROPERTY, ENOUGH OF

WHICH IS WHAT SEPARATES KNOWLEDGE FROM A LUCKY GUESS,

FROM A MERE TRUE BELIEF.

SO SUPPOSE I BELIEVE THAT THE YANKEES WILL WIN THE PENNANT AND

WIN THE WORLD SERIES THIS YEAR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW

THEY'RE IN LAST PLACE.

NOW, IT MIGHT TURN OUT THAT I'M RIGHT.

IT'S NOT THAT NOW I KNOW THAT THEY WILL.

I JUST GUESSED AND I WAS LUCKY.

SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND A LUCKY GUESS OR A

MERE TRUE BELIEF, THAT'S WE COULD USE THE TERM "WARRANT" TO

REFER TO THAT DIFFERENCE, SUCH THAT WHEN YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH OF

IT FOR A GIVEN BELIEF, THEN THAT BELIEF IS SOMETHING YOU KNOW AS

OPPOSED TO MERELY JUST BELIEVING.

WELL, NOW IT MIGHT BE THAT THE SUGGESTION IS BELIEF IN GOD WHEN

ACCEPTED NOT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE, BUT IN THAT BASIC WAY

DOESN'T HAVE WARRANT.

AND HERE WE'D WANT TO ASK THEN WHAT EXACTLY IS WARRANT?

WHAT DISTINGUISHES A WARRANTED BELIEF, A BELIEF THAT

CONSTITUTES KNOWLEDGE FROM MERE TRUE BELIEF IS

THAT IT'S BEEN PRODUCED IN ME OR IN YOU BY COGNITIVE

FACULTIES THAT ARE FUNCTIONING PROPERLY IN THE KIND OF

ENVIRONMENT FOR WHICH THEY WERE DESIGNED, DESIGNED BY GOD

OR EVOLUTION OR BOTH, ACCORDING TO A DESIGN PLAN THAT IS

SUCCESSFULLY AIMED AT TRUTH.

OKAY, SO SUPPOSE NOW WE ASK DOES BELIEF IN GOD, HAVE WARRANT?

I THINK YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING.

SUPPOSE THERE REALLY IS SUCH A PERSON AS GOD.

WELL, AND SUPPOSE AS THEISM SAYS HE'S CREATED US IN HIS IMAGE.

THEN HE WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY WANT US TO BE ABLE TO

KNOW ABOUT HIM.

SO BELIEF IN GOD WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY BE DESIGNED INTO

US BY GOD.

IT WOULD BE PART OF OUR DESIGN PLAN.

SO IF IN FACT BELIEF IN GOD IS TRUE, IF THERE REALLY IS SUCH A

PERSON AS GOD, THEN IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IT'S ALSO WARRANTED.

AND IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST?

AND IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST, THEN VERY LIKELY IT'S NOT PRODUCED IN

US BY COGNITIVE FACULTIES FUNCTIONING PROPERLY ACCORDING

TO A DESIGNED PLAN AIMED AT TRUTH.

BECAUSE, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT TRUE IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

SO THAT PARTICULAR PART OF OUR DESIGN PLAN WOULDN'T BE

AIMED AT TRUTH.

AND HENCE, BELIEF IN GOD WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IF

GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

NOW, WHEREAS THIS CAN SOUND TO BE CIRCULAR IN IT'S THINKING,

IT IS NOT.

BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS A JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR

BELIEF IN GOD.

SO WE'RE DEALING NOT WITH THE SUBJECT OF WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR

NOT OR WHETHER IT'S RATIONAL, JUSTIFIED AND APPROPRIATE.

RIGHT, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE IS WHETHER BELIEF IN GOD IS TRUE.

AND TWO IS WHETHER BELIEF IN GOD HAS WARRANT.

AND THESE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY, AS YOU SAY, IT'S NOT REALLY CIRCULAR.

BUT IT IS TRUE THAT BELIEF IN GOD HAS WARRANT IF AND ONLY

IF IT'S TRUE.

BECAUSE IF GOD REALLY DOES EXIST, THEN BELIEF IN GOD ALMOST

CERTAINLY VERY PROBABLY DOES HAVE WARRANT.

AND HENCE, ONE CAN'T SENSIBLY ARGUE THAT BELIEF IN GOD DOESN'T

HAVE WARRANT WITHOUT FIRST SHOWING THAT THERE ISN'T ANY

SUCH PERSON AS GOD.

WHO CAN KNOW A THING LIKE THAT?

THIS IS AL'S REVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT, WHICH TURNS

TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT GOD UPSIDE DOWN.

JUSTIFYING BELIEF IN GOD WITHOUT THE OLD, DISCREDITED

"PROOFS OF GOD."

WARRANT, OR TRUE BELIEF, FOR BELIEVING IN GOD, AL SAYS, IS

BASED ON GOD'S EXISTENCE.

THUS, THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW THAT BELIEF IN GOD DOES NOT HAVE

WARRANT IS TO KNOW THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

BUT WE CANNOT KNOW THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

THEREFORE, AL CONCLUDES, IT IS JUSTIFIED TO BELIEVE IN GOD.

WHAT?

CIRCULAR REASONING?

AND THUS INVALID?

AL'S ARGUMENT DOES SEEM TO REVOLVE IN CIRCLES.

THEN, SLOWLY, THE FOG LIFTS AND I START TO SEE

AL'S STARTLING POINT.

THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS HERE,

DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?

AND IS IT JUSTIFIED TO BELIEVE IN GOD?

BUT AM I SEEING A MIRAGE?

MY COGNITION TWISTED BY MY EMOTIONS?

I'M CONFUSED.

BUT I NOW APPRECIATE THE POWER OF PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

BUT I NEED MORE, ANOTHER WAY OF THINKING, ANOTHER PERSONALITY.

I MEET A PHILOSOPHER KNOWN FOR EXPLAINING HOW GOD RELATES TO

TIME AND HOW TO "SAVE GOD" FROM THE PROBLEM OF EVIL -

ELEONORE STUMP.

HERE'S THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

AT THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF ALL REALITY ACCORDING TO THE

MAJOR MONOTHEISMS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS A MIND AND A WILL.

THAT MEANS GOD IS A PERSON.

ANYTHING WITH MIND AND WILL IN OUR SENSE OF THE WORD IS

A PERSON, OKAY?

IF AT THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF ALL REALITY IS A PERSON THEN YOU

GOT TO KNOW A PERSON FACE TO FACE, PERSON TO PERSON OR REALLY

DON'T KNOW THEM AT ALL.

YOU'VE GOT TO EXPERIENCE GOD, SEE?

SO THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY.

ONE TIME MY SON CALLED ME UP AND HE SAID TO ME, MOM, HE SAID,

I'VE MET SOMEONE AND YOU NEED TO LIKE HER.

SO I'M ON HIGH ALERT AND I SAY TELL ME ABOUT HER.

THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION PART, SEE?

AND I WANT TO HEAR AS MUCH AS I CAN HEAR ABOUT HER, YOU KNOW

WHAT DOES SHE DO, WHAT SHE'S LIKE.

WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, HOWEVER, UNTIL I ACTUALLY MEET

HER, I HAVEN'T REALLY GOT WHAT I WANT BY WAY OF KNOWING HER.

SO WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THESE STREAMS ARE COMPLIMENTARY

TO EACH OTHER.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION IS "THE TELL ME ABOUT HER" PART.

AND THAT GIVES YOU STUFF WHICH IS WONDERFUL, DEEP, ENRICHING,

BUT IN THE END WHAT THE PSALMISTS SAYS IS TASTE AND SEE

THAT GOD IS GOOD AND YOU GOT TO HAVE THAT PART TOO.

SO HERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE.

IN THE 13TH CENTURY A VERY LEARNED DOMINICAN CAME

TO SEE FRANCIS.

AND HE HAD A PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT WAS WORRYING HIM.

HERE'S THE PASSAGE.

GOD SAYS TO THE PROPHET EZEKIEL, HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T

WARN SINNERS ABOUT THEIR SIN, I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU PERSONALLY

RESPONSIBLE AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE PUNISHMENT

THEIR EVILS DESERVE.

SO THE DOMINICAN - VERY LEARNED DOMINICANS SAID, FATHER FRANCIS

A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO MORALLY BAD THINGS COME ACROSS MY PATH

BUT I DON'T REALLY REBUKE THEM.

IS GOD GOING TO HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THAT STUFF?

SO YOU CAN SEE THE DOMINICANS PROBLEM.

HE'S SUPPOSED TO SAY HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE,

WAIT A MINUTE, YOU KNOW THAT THING YOU'RE DOING THERE,

THAT'S A MORALLY WRONG ACT AND I CAN SHOW YOU WHY IT IS.

I REASON IT OUT AND HERE'S THE ARGUMENTS AND

PREMISES AND STUFF.

YOU CAN SEE WHY THAT WOULD MAKE LIFE KIND OF DIFFICULT FOR

HIM AND WHY HE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IT.

SO FRANCIS SAID TO THE LEARNED DOMINICAN, IF YOU ARE A SERVANT

OF GOD, YOUR LIFE OUGHT TO BE ON FIRE WITH LOVE.

LOVE FOR GOD, LOVE FOR THE GOOD.

AND THAT FIRE OF LOVE WILL SET A STANDARD BY WHICH ANYBODY CAN

MEASURE HIS OWN SHORTCOMINGS AND MORAL WRONGDOINGS.

SO NOW WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS TWO RADICALLY DIFFERENT

WAYS OF THINKING.

ONE WAY IS TO SAY OK WE NEED PRINCIPLES, PREMISES, ARGUMENTS.

THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET OUR ETHICS DONE, OUR METAPHYSICS

AND SO ON.

BUT IN THE STORY FRANCIS' IDEA IS THIS.

NO YOU NEED ICONIC EXEMPLAR PEOPLE, PERSONS WHO SHOW YOU

SOMETHING THAT YOU COULDN'T GET OUT OF THE PREMISES AND BOTH OF

THESE STREAMS ARE USEFUL FOR US.

ELEONORE HAS TWO ROADS TO GET TO GOD - THE ANALYTICAL AND THE

EXPERIENTIAL, THE RATIONAL AND THE EMOTIONAL.

ME?

I GUESS I'M HANDICAPPED - I HAVE ONLY ONE.

I RELY ON ANALYSIS, BUT I DISTRUST FEELINGS.

IF PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION HAS UNIVERSAL IMPORT, IT MUST ALSO

WORK WITH RELIGIONS THAT ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.

I SHOULD LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT MY OWN HERITAGE.

I GO TO NEW YORK TO MEET A JEWISH PHILOSOPHER AT

YESHIVA UNIVERSITY - RABBI DAVID SHATZ.

THE TWO TYPES OF PHILOSOPHY, THE TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES TO

STUDYING RELIGION, HAVE BEEN FIRST OF ALL WHAT WOULD ROUGHLY

BE CALLED THE "ANALYTIC SCHOOL," WHICH IS VERY

COMMON IN AMERICA.

IN ENGLAND THIS IS THIS IS ALL THE RAGE THERE PRIMARILY.

THE OTHER IS THROUGH KIND OF CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY, EUROPEAN

PHILOSOPHY, WHICH DEALS WITH QUESTIONS MORE ABOUT THE INNER

LIFE OF THE BELIEVER WHAT IS THE PSYCHE OF THE BELIEVER WHEN HE

PRAYS, WHEN HE HAS AN EXPERIENCE THE HOLY RELIGIOUS PHENOMENOLOGY

IS BASICALLY WHAT IT IS.

WHAT ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY DOES IS REALLY TWO THINGS PRIMARILY.

FIRST OF ALL IT CLARIFIES A LOT OF RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS.

YOU HAVE CONCEPTS LIKE, YOU KNOW, GOD'S BEING OMNISCIENT,

GOD'S BEING OMNIPOTENT, HE'S ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING, KNOWS

EVERYTHING, CAN DO EVERYTHING, IS ALL GOOD.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF CLARIFICATION THAT'S NEEDED OF

THOSE CONCEPTS, PARTICULARLY SINCE SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY

CONFLICT WITH OTHER SORTS OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES.

ALSO, SOME PEOPLE WHO'VE WORKED IN THIS AREA OF CLARIFYING

CONCEPTS HAVE FOUND THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN DISTANCE THAT IT

CREATES BETWEEN BIBLICALLY BASED RELIGION AND SORT OF

PHILOSOPHICALLY-BASED RELIGION.

I THINK THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE CONCEPT OF GOD

NOT HAVING EMOTIONS.

YOU LOOK AT THE BIBLE, GOD HAS A GREAT DEAL OF PERSONALITY.

GOD GETS ANGRY, GOD GETS SAD, SOMETIMES HE'S FURIOUS.

AND IT PORTRAYS GOD AS A PERSONALITY.

THEN YOU GET TO PHILOSOPHY, AND PHILOSOPHY TELLS YOU GOD CAN'T

HAVE EMOTIONS BECAUSE -

THAT WOULD BE AN IMPERFECTION -

IT WOULD BE AN IMPERFECTION BECAUSE HE CHANGES.

THAT CONCEPT DOESN'T REALLY MESH WITH THE BIBLICAL.

PHILOSOPHERS ARE BECOMING VERY CONSCIOUS OF THIS GAP AND

THEY'RE RAISING A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE

ATTRIBUTES AND THE CONCEPTS THAT THEY INTRODUCE IN TRYING TO

DESCRIBE GOD ARE REALLY ONES THAT THEY NEED.

THE SECOND FUNCTION BESIDES CLARIFYING CONCEPTS IS TRYING TO

PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

IN THE JEWISH TRADITION, THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE ON TRYING

TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, SO MUCH SO THAT A NUMBER OF

JEWISH PHILOSOPHERS BELIEVED THAT IT IS A RELIGIOUS

OBLIGATION TO STUDY PHILOSOPHY, SO MUCH SO THAT MIMONADADES

ACTUALLY INCLUDES THIS IN THE MITZVAH, OR COMMANDMENT,

TO STUDY TORAH, TALMUD, TORAH.

FOR MIMOADADES THE ACTIVITY OF PROVING WHAT THE WORLD IS LIKE

AND THINKING ABOUT GOD IS ITSELF GOING TO LEAD TO THE

LOVE OF GOD.

A LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS QUESTION THIS, MOST NOTABLY

JUDAH HA LEVY, WHO ACTUALLY DIED BEFORE MIMODADES WROTE.

BUT HALAVY BELIEVED THAT REASON COOLS THE PASSIONS.

RIGHT?

THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET LOVE OUT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO IS GET AN ABSTRACTNESS AND, YOU KNOW,

YOU'RE GONNA STUDY GOD THE WAY IN WHICH THE ASTRONOMER STUDIES

THE STARS WHERE HE COULDN'T CARE LESS WHETHER IT TURNS OUT HE HAD

THE WRONG THEORY ONE DAY.

AND HALAVY BELIEVES YOU CAN'T HAVE LOVE OF GOD THIS WAY.

YOU CAN COME TO THE IDEA A CREATOR BUT NOT THE IDEA OF

A PERSONAL GOD.

STILL, THIS NOTION OF PHILOSOPHY AS A RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION IS

TIED UP WITH THE IDEA OF LOVE OF GOD.

THE SECOND THING THAT I THINK MADE PHILOSOPHY VALUABLE, IT

COMES IN A LITTLE, SMALL COMMENT THAT'S MADE BY SAHDJAGOL WHERE

HE SAYS WHEN YOU STUDY PHILOSOPHY FOR A NUMBER OF

REASONS, ONE OF THEM IS TO ANSWER THE HERETIC AND THE

OTHER, HE SAYS, IS TO MAKE IT A MATTER OF ACTUAL

KNOWLEDGE TO US.

SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A MATH PROBLEM AND YOU'RE TRYING TO WORK ON THE

SOLUTION AND YOU CAN'T QUITE SOLVE IT.

YOU GO TO THE BACK OF THE BOOK, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY HAVE THE

ANSWERS TO THOSE, AND THE ANSWER IS THE SQUARE ROOT OF 37.

WELL, YOU NOW KNOW THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT PROBLEM IS THE

SQUARE ROOT OF 37.

BUT IN ANOTHER SENSE YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW IT.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION IS.

YOU'RE NOT PLACING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER THINGS

THAT YOU KNOW.

AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT SADJA MEANS WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE

IDEA OF MAKING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD A MATTER OF

ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE TO US.

DAVID SEES MORE COMPLEMENTARITY THAN CONFLICT

IN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.

BIBLICALLY-BASED RELIGION, HE SAYS, DOES NOT CONTRADICT

PHILOSOPHICALLY-BASED RELIGION.

DAVID PROTECTS HIS OWN WORLDVIEW.

I HOPE HE'S RIGHT.

I CAN DESPAIR OVER PHILOSOPHY.

THERE SEEMS AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROGRESS

AND MEANINGFULNESS - THAT WHICH MAKES PROGRESS

IS NOT MEANINGFUL.

AND THAT WHICH IS MEANINGFUL MAKES NO PROGRESS.

PERHAPS TOO MANY BELIEVERS MAKE ME WEARY.

PERHAPS I SHOULD SPEAK WITH A PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION WHO

IS AN ATHEIST.

I MEET MICHAEL TOOLEY.

MICHAEL, CAN PHILOSOPHY ILLUMINATE RELIGION?

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT CAN.

I MEAN, PHILOSOPHY GOES BACK TO SOCRATES AND THE IDEA THAT THE

UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING.

AND OUT OF THAT SORT OF SOCRATIC START YOU HAVE THIS IDEA THAT IT

IS IMPORTANT TO SUBJECT YOUR MOST BASIC BELIEFS AND VALUES

AND SO ON TO REALLY CAREFUL CRITICAL SCRUTINY, RIGHT?

AND I THINK THAT IF A RELIGIOUS BELIEVER DOES THAT, THEN HE OR

SHE WILL THEN MOVE ON EITHER TO A MORE SATISFYING FORMULATION OF

THE BASIC RELIGIOUS OUTLOOKS THEY HAVE, A FORMULATION THAT

AVOIDS CERTAIN PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS AND SO ON, OR

ALTERNATIVELY OF COURSE, THEY MAY DECIDE TO GIVE UP THE

RELIGION THAT THEY HAVE.

BUT IN EITHER CASE - EITHER ONE IS MOVED ON TO A DIFFERENT VIEW

THAT ONE THINKS IS INTELLECTUALLY MORE SATISFYING,

MORE LIKELY TO BE TRUE, OR ONE HAS REFINED THE VIEW THAT ONE

STARTED WITH AND ARRIVED AT A BETTER FORMULATION OF IT.

A LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS SHARE THE VIEW PUT FORTH BY THE GREAT

SCOTTISH PHILOSOPHER DAVID HUME.

HUME SAID THAT THE WISE MAN - ONE MIGHT ADD THE WISE WOMAN -

PROPORTIONS HIS OR HER BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE, RIGHT?

IN CONTRAST IN THE CASE OF RELIGION, THERE IS OFTEN AN

EMPHASIS UPON FAITH.

THAT'S SOMETIMES INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT IT'S A GOOD THING TO

BELIEVE THINGS EVEN IF THERE ISN'T VERY STRONG EVIDENTIAL

SUPPORT FOR IT.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ONE CAN GET FROM PHILOSOPHY IF ONE

IS RELIGIOUS IS JUST THIS QUESTION, IS FAITH A GOOD

THING OR NOT?

OR SHOULD I TRY TO ARRIVE AT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT

ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE?

I THINK ONE SHOULD ALSO TAKE THE VIEW THAT THERE COULD BE

EXPERIENCES OTHER THAN SENSORY EXPERIENCES THAT DO HAVE

EVIDENTIAL VALUE, BUT THE IDEA AGAIN WOULD BE THAT YOU DON'T

SIMPLY ASSUME THAT IF YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE AN EXPERIENCE OF

GOD THAT IT FOLLOWS, OF COURSE, THAT THERE IS GOOD REASON TO

BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, RIGHT?

YOU HAVE TO TAKE A CRITICAL -

IT COULD BE A - A - SEIZURE IN YOUR TEMPORAL LOBE.

THAT'S RIGHT, YEAH, OR A BELIEF YOU ABSORB FROM YOUR

ENVIRONMENT AND YOUR FAMILY AND SO ON.

SO, THE IDEA IS THAT YOU DON'T, SO TO SPEAK, BEGIN BY EXCLUDING

ANY EXPERIENCES, BUT NEITHER DO YOU ASSUME THAT CERTAIN

EXPERIENCES, OF COURSE, JUSTIFIED GROUNDS FOR

ACCEPTING GIVEN BELIEF.

YOU LOOK AT THAT CAREFULLY USING THE METHODS YOU USE TO LOOK AT

ANY OTHER SORTS OF EXPERIENCES.

I LOVE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION - PROOFS AND DISPROOFS OF GOD.

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.

ALTERNATIVE BELIEFS ABOUT GOD.

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION.

I APPRECIATE PHILOSOPHERS OF RELIGION - BE THEY THEISTS OR

ATHEISTS BECAUSE THEY CONTRIBUTE TO RELIGIOUS UNDERSTANDING.

BECAUSE THEY CLARIFY RELIGIOUS ISSUES.

I REJECT THE OBJECTION THAT PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING WILL

REDUCE ONE'S RELIGIOUS FERVOR.

UNLESS, OF COURSE, THERE IS NO REALITY BEHIND THE FERVOR,

AND THEN, WELL, GOOD RIDDANCE TO FALSE FERVOR!

SOME SAY I SHOULD SUBMIT TO GOD - EXPERIENCE GOD IN MY HEART.

OR THAT BELIEF IN GOD IS SO BASIC I NEED NO

JUSTIFICATION TO BELIEVE.

I RESPECT THOSE WHO SAY THEY "KNOW GOD" OR WHO GIVE LICENSE

TO BELIEVE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT.

BUT THOSE WAYS ARE NOT MY WAYS.

I MAY BE WRONG GETTING CLOSER TO TRUTH.