Philosophy of Religion: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides) by Charles Taliaferro

Philosophy of Religion: A Beginner's Guide (Beginner's Guides) Reviews

• 
  Choong Chiat

  Although I may be mistaken but it would seem to me that in this introduction to the philosophy of religion, the author appears to be of a stance that favours theism, particularly that of a Judeo-Christian variant.
  
  I say the above because of the format the author chose to present information in the book. The format is as follows.
  
  First, arguments in favour of theism are presented.
  
  Then, counter-arguments or objections to the above are presented.
  
  Finally, supposed possible replies to the above counter-arguments/objections are postulated.
  
  It did not help that the arguments in favour of theism and replies to counter-arguments/objections were perhaps based on rather unsubstantiated, weak, ad hoc and unfalsifiable assumptions.
  
  For example, the author presents the argument that the existence of God is necessary for there to be ultimate meaning to human life, justice and reconciliation. But this then begs the question of "must there necessarily be an ultimate meaning to human life, justice and reconciliation?"
  
  The above aside, I must say that this book was able to adequately present information about a rather difficult topic in an easy to understand and concise manner.
  
  Hence, I will recommend this book to those who may be interested to know more about the philosophy of religion. However, as the author himself admits, this book can only serve as a starting point, not as a comprehensive tome on the philosophy of religion.
• 
  Ian

  Part of my secularising journey back in college. I remember finding this book particularly insightful.
• 
  Brendan Shea

  I used this as a textbook for a introductory course in the philosophy of religion. Given its price (it is *much* cheaper than many of its competitors) and breadth (it touches on many "major" issues in canonical philosophy of religion), I may well adopt it again in the future. However, I also had some reservations about it, and my hope is that the book will improve in future editions:
  
  1. The book has chapters on definitional issues concerning philosophy/religion, the concept of God, arguments for God, the problem of evil, miracles/afterlife, Buddhism/Hinduism, and morality/religion. It doesn't assume any prior knowledge on the part of students, and Taliaferro's presentation of arguments is clearly aimed at beginners (as it should be!). The book can easily be read in its entirely in a few hours. Which brings me to my next point...
  
  2. I thought the book was both too short, and overly focused on theistic apologetics (much of which both my students and I found to be implausible). While I realize this is in keeping both current philosophy of religion scholarship (which is predominantly produced by theist philosophers), and by the usual structure of philosophy of religion texts, I think that this is something that needs to change. In future editions, I would very much like to see chapters on things such as religion/science, on the relevance of neuroscience/psychology/sociology to religious belief, on the history of philosophy of religion, and more on non-theistic religions or naturalistic worldviews (these are just general ideas). In general, my sense is that the narrow focus on theist apologetics gives students a (false) sense of the extent of the ease with which Abrahamic-style theism can be squared with contempory science, philosophy, ethics, etc.
  
  3. In a very general sense, I got the feeling that Taliaferro was trying to argue that theism is something like an "acceptable" or "rational" worldview, and that naturalists underestimate the extent to which their own worldview commits them to implausible/unwelcome committments. While I don't share this belief, the fact that the textbook adopts this view didn't much bother me. What did worry me, however, was Taliaferro's habit of claiming that common naturalistic views (for example, elimativism/reductionism about consciousness) were in some sense implausible, and then using this implausiblity to try and make the case for theism's rational permissibility. While I realize these views often *sound* implausible to philosophical novices (especially those with theist sympathies), my experience has been that many students (once presented with the arguments for them), often find them perfectly coherent, and often attractive. And among professional philosophers (at least outside of the philosophy of religion), I think that these views are much more widespread than Taliaferro grants. In short, I think that Taliaferro needs to address (in a much lengthy and direct fashion) the defenses of naturalism given by people like Dan Dennett, Graham Oppy, etc.
• 
  Jonathan

  This is an almost perfect survey of the field. My only disappointment was with his shallow treatment of homosexuality in the last section of the book. The method Taliaferro suggests could be used to justify almost anything, so long as whatever the contemporary cultural understanding of "love" is is uncritically adopted. How such an otherwise perceptive thinker could fail to recognize that there might be a disconnect between the Biblical view of love and what it means for God to be loving and our contemporary intuitions about love is a bit baffling. Or perhaps he would be aware of such a disconnect in other contexts (e.g., abortion, slavery?), but is simply swept up with this hot-button issue. That would be, perhaps, even more shameful!
  
  Mr. Chesterton gives the perfect reply to Dr. Taliaferro's suggestion:
  
  

  “The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy.” (Orthodoxy, p. 50)

  
  
  Dr. Taliaferro’s suggestion fails to take account of Christian virtues (of God as good, of love) having gone mad. Interestingly, Kant undercuts the appeal of the method Taliaferro suggests, for it clearly runs against how both the Old and New Testament interpret the Abraham event and, thereby, loses any claim to be Christian or biblical.
• 
  John Martindale

  I do appreciate the author, Taliaferro is someone who obviously loves the subject at hand and is extremely knowledgeable. The book covered a wider variety of theories, objections and responses than I've encountered elsewhere. Perhaps it was precisely because he touched on more than most would, that I was disappointed that he made no mention to some of the perspectives that I think best deal with various religious conundrums. For example, Gregory Boyd, I think has constructed the most satisfactory Theodicy available today (in his scholarly books "God at War" and "Satan and the Problem of Evil"), and yet sadly there was no mention of his contribution in section that dealt with the problem of natural evil. But I know, I hoped for to much. I did like Taliaferro coverage on the soul, he wrote a full book "A brief History of Soul" which goes into much more depth, I'd recommend it.
• 
  Shishir

  Big questions of Religion discussed in context of five Religions; Christianity, Islam, Judaism, (Abrahamic) and the Eastern, Hinduism and Buddhism. Discussions and debated points include existence (life and thereafter) experience of God, ultimate reality, morality and even politics. I found the read thought provoking; However it was rather heavy with selective and circular arguments making it a clunky read.
• 
  Emily

  Overall, I enjoyed this book. I definitely skimmed some of the parts that were a little too dense and existential for me, but I really enjoyed the parts about moral relativity, religion in ethics and politics, and the theory of religious exclusivism vs inclusivism.