I Sharpening our Focus on Philosophy

• Philosophy of religion is not a religious pursuit; it is a study about religion, not an aspect of religion itself.
• Like other “philosophy of …” fields (e.g., philosophy of science, philosophy of history), philosophy of religion operates on a meta-level, meaning it reflects on and analyzes religion rather than practicing or defending it.
• Philosophy of religion could be termed “metareligion” in analogy to how philosophy of science is sometimes referred to as “metascience.”
• Apologetics, in contrast, is focused on defending or “answering back” religious beliefs, particularly against skepticism or criticism. It is motivated by a fixed interest in defending established positions rather than free inquiry, which distinguishes it from philosophy.
• Apologetics is more about defending religious interests and is not considered a philosophical discipline because it lacks the commitment to unrestricted argument that philosophy demands.
• Philosophical theology, another distinct field, uses philosophical methods to explicate or discover the implications of theological doctrines but remains within the theological sphere. It is part of the subject matter for philosophy of religion but is not identical to it.
• Philosophy of religion is a subdivision of philosophy, which is a broader discipline concerned with a way of thinking rather than a specific subject area.
• Philosophy is characterized by its approach to thinking beyond the boundaries of any particular discipline while still adhering to rational discipline. This distinguishes it from other fields that deal with specific, well-defined areas.

We must Think Comprehensively

• Philosophy addresses questions that are not typically found in specialized departments of human inquiry.
• Philosophical questions are not necessarily “higher” or “better” than those in other fields but fulfill an important function that specialized fields cannot handle.
• Specialized fields (e.g., history, mathematics, physics) focus on their specific areas of knowledge but do not typically ask boundary-indifferent questions such as:
  • “What, if anything, do we mean by ‘knowledge’ in all these contexts?”
  • “Is there any single set of criteria for ‘knowing’?”
• These boundary-indifferent questions are relevant to all specialized fields but fall under the exclusive domain of philosophy.
• Anyone can raise these questions, and those who engage in them using rational inquiry are acting as philosophers, whether or not they have a formal philosophical title.
• Professional philosophers work full-time on these “omnirelevant” questions and typically have extensive training in critical inquiry.
• Examples of boundary-indifferent questions include:
  • Questions about the nature of knowledge (epistemology).
  • Questions about what constitutes “existence” or “being” in general.
• These questions might involve:
  • What, if anything, do all entities have in common regarding their existence?
  • Are there common criteria for the term “being” across different contexts?
• The study of such questions is known as metaphysics, which Aristotle referred to as the study of “being qua being.”
• Besides epistemology and metaphysics, philosophy also addresses questions related to value.
• The arts discuss aesthetic value, economics focuses on monetary value, and moral reflection engages with moral value.
• Axiology is the branch of philosophy concerned with understanding value in itself and the criteria for “value qua value.”
• The three broad families of philosophical problems are epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology.
• This might seem to suggest that philosophy has a specialized subject matter, contradicting the earlier view.
• The apparent contradiction is resolved by recognizing that these problems result from comprehensive thinking and cannot be fully specialized.
• Philosophical questions impact every thinker aiming for comprehensive understanding and often intersect with one another.
• For example:
  • Axiology must consider the legitimacy of attributing “existence” to values, intertwining with metaphysics.
  • The status of values is a question of both axiology and metaphysics, not easily separable.
  • Questions about value and existence also involve epistemological considerations.
• Philosophical questions that span multiple domains (axiology, metaphysics, epistemology) demonstrate the interconnected nature of these inquiries.
• Philosophy is best seen as a way of thinking that defies compartmentalization, focusing on comprehensive understanding rather than specialization.
• A philosopher engages with boundary-spanning questions and may or may not make it their primary occupation.
• Philosophy can be described as a way of thinking comprehensively, often transcending traditional boundaries and categorizations.

We must Think Critically

• Being comprehensive alone does not make one philosophical; daydreaming or primitive mythologies can be comprehensive but not philosophical.
• Professional philosophers are trained individuals with their own literature, methods, and vocabulary.
• Philosophy differs from specialized disciplines in its unlimited scope of questions and its rational discipline of method.
• The essence of philosophy is thinking most comprehensively and critically.
• Critical thought must be rational and disciplined. The key principles of critical thought include:
  • The rule of consistency: Critical thought must be consistent and free of contradictions. Inconsistencies undermine rationality and must be addressed with formal logic tools.
  • Consistency and rationality: While consistency alone is not sufficient for rationality, it is essential for initiating rational thought.
  • Objections to consistency: Some may argue that insisting on consistency excludes the possibility of paradox or absurdity. However, even to reject consistency, one must implicitly adhere to it to maintain coherent communication.
  • Self-refuting denials: Denying the rule of consistency while using it to communicate is self-refuting, demonstrating that consistency is necessary for meaningful discourse.
  • Indispensable condition: Consistency is fundamental for intelligibility; without it, meaningful thought and questioning are impossible.
  • Question-permitting: Consistency is not question-begging but question-permitting, as it allows for meaningful questions and answers.
  • Philosophical proposals: Even proposals of paradox or absurdity must be consistent to be intelligible and meaningful.
• The rule of evidence is a second crucial methodological principle for rational thought, supplementing the rule of consistency.
• Consistency alone is insufficient; thoughts must also be adequately warranted by appropriate evidence.
• The rule of evidence requires that rational thinkers give consent to propositions only if they are supported by sufficient evidence.
• This rule is general and applies to rational methodology across various fields, though specific methods and criteria for evidence will vary by field.
• The tendency for humans to favor comfort and conventional belief can lead to a lack of critical thinking and an inclination to believe too readily.
• Many people are prone to accepting beliefs easily, influenced by social pressure and a desire to conserve mental effort.
• Conversely, some individuals adopt a skeptical posture as a way to avoid genuine critical thinking, which can also be a form of evasion.
• Critical thinkers must actively seek evidence and challenge both dogmatic credulity and dogmatic skepticism.
• The habit of seeking sufficient grounds for acceptance of claims is a fundamental aspect of the rule of evidence.
• While critical thinking requires a rigorous and sometimes “unnatural” discipline, it is essential for rational thought.
• The challenge of proving the rule of evidence is met by acknowledging that any proof requires underlying principles, which ultimately must be accepted without further proof.
• This necessity means that rationality must start from basic principles that commend themselves without the need for exhaustive proof.
• The rule of evidence ensures that propositions must show adequate support before being accepted or rejected, controlling our tendency to believe or disbelieve.
• Groundless beliefs, which lack support, are prevented from taking hold in our intellect, thereby maintaining order and structure in our thinking.
• On a speculative level, adhering to the rule of evidence helps avoid conceptual chaos and promotes a structured understanding.
• Practically, beliefs influence actions; hence, groundless beliefs can lead to irresponsible actions, while a lack of novelty or dogmatic rejection can limit the richness of one’s life.
• There is an inherent value in preferring richness and order in life over chaos and randomness, though some fundamental preferences may be beyond rational argument and rely on personal discernment.
• The ideal of coherence extends beyond consistency by requiring that beliefs be not only free of contradiction but also positively connected to one another.
• Evidence for a proposition involves some positive connection between the evidence and the proposition.
• Ideally, beliefs should form a coherent and integral structure that supports and is supported by other beliefs, creating a robust system of thought.
• In reality, human belief systems are often fragmented, with various structures of belief existing independently, but striving for coherence and integration remains a valuable ideal.
• This drive towards coherence reflects a commitment to maintaining integrity as conscious agents, seeking greater connection among our beliefs.
• The discussion about philosophical thinking aims to be neutral and applicable to a broad range of philosophical positions.
• Philosophy is described as “comprehensive and critical,” balancing the need to avoid excessive vagueness and narrowness.
• The importance of evidential backing for rational beliefs is emphasized without specifying the exact nature of “evidence.”
• The nature of evidence, whether public or private, remains an open question, influencing key debates in contemporary philosophy.
• The definition of evidence, from its Latin roots meaning obvious and manifest, suggests it should be evident to all.
• Philosophers differ on whether evidence must be sensory or if private experiences can be valid, especially in fields like ethics, art, and religion.
• The decision on what constitutes bona fide evidence often involves quasi-judicial judgments, which will be explored in further chapters.

II Justifying our Enterprise

• Some argue that critical thinking lacks legitimacy or effectiveness when applied to religious subjects.
• Philosophy of Religion aims to apply comprehensive and critical thinking to religious matters.
• Challenges to Philosophy of Religion include:
  • Theological veto: Some religious perspectives argue that reason should not or cannot succeed in understanding religious matters.
  • Argument from bias: Emerging from depth psychology, this challenge suggests that critical thinking is inherently biased when applied to religion.
• The current discussion addresses challenges questioning the propriety or possibility of the philosophy of religion from a principled standpoint, rather than specific critiques of its application.

The Theological Veto

• The theological veto argues that philosophy, especially when addressing religious questions like the nature of God or miracles, is impious and improper.
• This position claims that human reason is in profound hostility to divine matters because humanity is considered “fallen,” and using reason to judge divine matters is seen as elevating reason above God.
• Arguing for faith through reason is viewed as showing faithlessness, as it suggests that faith needs the defense of human reason, which is deemed unnecessary for understanding divine truths.
• The veto’s position is logically irrefutable; it cannot be disproven within the scope of reasoned argument.
• Despite being logically irrefutable, the veto can still be rejected for several reasons:
  • It is futile because reason cannot be isolated from matters of faith; even discussing faith requires consistent reasoning.
  • It is self-defeating and potentially dangerous, as rejecting critical examination can be seen as a sign of weakness and may lead to bigotry and fanaticism.
  • It rests on morally questionable assumptions, as it may involve confusing human thoughts with divine ones and assuming that one’s own limitations are absolute.
• Offering reasons against the rejection of reason may seem circular, but this circle is seen as leading to intellectual wholeness rather than fragmentation.
• This “virtuous circle” represents responsible decision-making and ongoing progress in thought.
• Both circles appeal to a notion of the “full life” and threaten with significant consequences for non-engagement.
• The circle of reason is distinct because it allows for continual testing and correction, demonstrating its confidence and strength.
• Theological veto defenders may remain unconvinced due to their basic religious value judgments.
• Respect for differing choices is important, but mutual respect and openness to different philosophical approaches can lead to expanded horizons and new possibilities.

The Argument from Bias

• The “argument from bias” challenges the role of reason in religious questions, claiming that personal stakes and emotional investments prevent impartiality.
• Such questions, involving self-concept and existential concerns, inherently carry emotional and psychological weight, leading to potential biases.
• Life decisions and personal patterns can result in vested interests in specific religious answers, complicating objective investigation.
• The human mind’s tendency to rationalize biases poses a significant challenge to objective thinking in religion.
• Despite this, the argument from bias highlights the importance of recognizing and addressing personal prejudices.
• Bringing biases to conscious examination can help mitigate their effects, similar to how psychoanalysis can address unconscious forces.
• Critical thinking has built-in “antibodies” or counter-biases that support the pursuit of well-supported beliefs, despite personal prejudices.
• Countering the argument from bias requires practical demonstration, not just theoretical refutation.
• Evaluating philosophers who address religious issues involves examining whether their thought practices counteract bias.
• Engaging in philosophical inquiry about religion necessitates caution, self-awareness, and courage, acknowledging both the limitations and potential of human inquiry.
• There are no guarantees of success, but a serious commitment to the integrity of inquiry can drive more rigorous and reflective examination.