Customer Reviews

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book features some of the top theistic philosophers of religion in the world delivering a defense of the existence of God. This book is extremely thorough, answering every possible objection along the way.

Be warned, this book assumes you have an understanding of the vocabulary and methodology of analytic philosophy. The ontological argument assumes that you, the reader, understand propositional calculus. This book is not for the layman.

As an atheist, I recognize this as the single greatest defense of theism ever assembled. Craig and Moreland basically made a list of the most compelling contemporary arguments for the existence of God, tracked down their foremost living defenders, and gave them 50-100 pages to make their case. The result is awe-inspiring, even for the atheist.

I do not expect the book to succeed in demonstrating theism, but it might take a full decade for me to fully analyze its meaty arguments and come to some conclusions.

Even if Earth's universities are emptied of theists by the year 2400, we may look then look back and see 'The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology' as the high-point in the philosophical defense of theism. So I give this book 5 stars not because it convinced me that a magical super-being spoke the universe into existence and revealed himself to ancient, ignorant people through the virgin birth of a man-god who did party tricks, got killed, then rose from the dead and flew off into the sky. No, I give this book 5 stars because it's the best defense of such a myth that can possibly be mustered.

High points include Craig & Sinclair's new deployment of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and McGrew & McGrew's astounding Bayesian defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Also, readers may be surprised to learn that the modal ontological argument has progressed a great deal since Plantinga. To my knowledge, atheists have yet to show what might be wrong with Robert Maydole's latest ontological argument, printed within.

Because I hold this book in such high esteem, I will be writing hundreds of pages in response to its arguments, starting with Craig's kalam argument and Linville's moral argument. You can track my progress at CommonSenseAtheism.com.

'The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology' is a tour-de-force of analytic philosophy. If the world is just, it will shape the theistic side of the debate over the existence of God for at least a decade. In my opinion, it has no equal among atheistic literature - yet.

This is a fantastic book. But is it the "greatest defense of theism" ever assembled? No. Why? Because it is (in general) not defensive; rather, this would fall under the category of "offensive" apologetics. In general, this book attempts to prove God through Kalam, ontological, etc. But to say that this is a defense of theism simply shows the other reviewer's misunderstanding of philosophy. A defense of theism is when atheists attempt, through logic, to disprove God, and the theist "defends" theism by showing that the atheist's proofs are false (this is where theism is at its strongest). Disproving an argument FOR God does not disprove God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And when a reviewer writes that they will be "dismantling" the arguments shown here, simply disregard this. The philosophers and theologians who write essays in this book are top notch; atheist philosophers have a hard enough time trying to rebut them, and a 3rd year civil engineer student is attempting to? He is simply preaching to the choir (ironically, an atheist choir). I have witnessed quite a few layman try to disprove the Kalam, or the Modal, etc., only to use faulty logic or completely misunderstand the arguments. Christopher Hitchens admitted to being beat by William Lane Craig in a debate, and renowned atheist philosopher Walter Sinnot-Armstrong admitted to the coherency of theism during another Craig debate, and yet the average layman believes he has a chance??? Go look on Reasonablefaith.org to read all the poor attempts at outsmarting Craig.

My main point is this: Do not obsess. I went through a time when I was rampantly reading apologetics, and then I would turn around to read atheistic literature. I did this because I was constantly in a state of, "But what if Craig/Plantinga/Moreland/etc. is wrong?? Look at all the atheists today! Surely they can't ALL be wrong!" This line of thinking is natural, though can be very detrimental. Even the great Socrates recognizes the problem here: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing. And that is that I know nothing." We cannot know the answer to every question or every objection. Do not constantly worry about atheists attempting to disprove God, for this leads no where. Eventually you will have to make a choice, and stick with it without having to worry about possible objections.

Oh, and order this for your library! That's an easy way to get it (and without cost!).


Note: This book is definitely advanced. If you would describe yourself as "the layman," this book is not for you. I immerse myself in apologetics, but there is quite a bit that I don't understand. You need a thorough education in certain aspects in order to understand EVERY argument from top to bottom. Nonetheless, it is a joy to read.

Excellence is the one word that can describe this masterpiece. While my buddy Luke over here says this is best we will probably ever see, I say a bar has been set and it can only get better from here. Did you forget that the truth is on our side?

William Lane Craig has put out a beautiful argument in the Kalam Cosmological Argument that has been taking on numerous gunfire from opponents, however in the end it still stands unblemished. It seems as though many have tried and THOUGHT they succeeded in debunked the KCA only to find that their thoughts have been put to shreds due to lack of philosophical and scientific knowledge or they just don't understand the argument. I laugh at the flops and hopelessly bad objections to the KCA and it seems like the critics are running out of steam. it seems as though that the attention this argument gets, speaks volumes. Now the argument just got stronger.

Premise 1 is what most of the critics have TRIED to bring down constantly, but always seem to fall short. So this time Craig wants to make it more iron-clad then it already is and brings some help alongside him with a man by the name of James Sinclair who combined with Dr. Craig really show how virtually indestructible this powerful argument is. This is as of 2011 most likely the best essay in regards to the description of Kalam Cosmological argument.

Then you have J.P Moreland with the argument from consciousness, Tim Mcgrew with the argument for the resurrection (though I think N.T Wrights "Resurrection of the Son of God" is still the best book on this subject). Robin Collins provides a great dissection of why the "fine-tuning" argument is possibly the greatest evidence for a higher power that we have as of today.

It is interesting how we don't see Robert Merrihew Adams or John Hare writing about morals in this book (as I consider them the best in this subject), but WLC and JPM choosing Mark linville to write about morals. Mark did good, and considering I've hardly heard of him before this book, I'm definitely considering checking out his new book on morals that is coming out later this year. Robert Maydole tweaks Plantinga's Ontological argument and molds it into a formidable argument for God's existence. Some of these others I've never heard of, but what impressed in what I read.

All in all this book is worth the price tag, but if you are not experienced in philosophy or apologetics it might take a couple of reads, before you can fully understand it.

The work of current Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga have greatly influenced me. I am currently a high school senior interested in majoring in philosophy, greatly because of the influence Craig has had on me personally. Before I was 16, I had a handful of doubt and wasn't a Christian, God saved me, but Craig had an enormous influence on me personally, helping grow my intellectual interests in Christianity post-salvation.

But personal issues aside-- this volume on natural theology is incredible. It isn't far too difficult to understand for the non-scholar, but it still has the precision to defend the existence of God on an extremely high level. The price is a bit high, but it is definitely worth it if you are willing to buy it.

These men are truly carrying the torch for defending the faith that they have in them.

"..but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.." (1 Peter 3:15)

By the way, my name isn't A.G. You., for some reason I used a gift card that someone had given me once, and it thinks that is my name.

Jay

Like Luke Muehlhauser (author of the current "most helpful review"), I'm an atheist with a big interest in philosophy of religion. I'm ambivalent about his comment that this is the best defense of theism ever assembled, but at least it's the best that's been assembled in some time. But it's not as good as one would have hoped, given the page count and, especially, the price tag.

The problem with the book is that over half the essays included in it discuss many important parts of their arguments in great detail, but have one crucial step in the argument which gets minimal defense, and pretty obviously should have gotten more in order to make the argument convincing.

Consider the chapter on William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument. The basic argument says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, so the universe has a cause, and then further arguments are given to show that the cause is God. When I first read this argument in the 2nd edition of Craig's book Reasonable Faith, I thought this last step, showing that the cause is God, was the weakest point in Craig's presentation. It's also this point that got the least attention in the Blackwell Companion: roughly three pages out of a one hundred page article. This is barely more space than was given to this crucial step in the argument in the latest edition of Reasonable Faith, even though as a whole the Reasonable Faith discussion is less than half the length of the Blackwell Companion discussion.

Someone seriously interested in Craig's arguments should certainly read the Blackwell Companion article if they can, because it's the most detailed presentation of the kalam argument argument Craig has produced in years. However, one would have hoped that in a 100-page essay he would had a reasonably thorough defense of each of the argument's steps rather than just most of them. Over half the chapters are like this: not completely terrible, but not as good as they should have been given the space the authors had to work with.

I also have a hard time seeing some of the most respected historical defenders of theism, particularly Thomas Aquinas and Samuel Clarke, making the kinds of poorly thought-out presentations found in the Blackwell Companion. That's why I'm reluctant to call this the GREATEST DEFENSE OF THEISM EVAR, though I recognize the advantages of some of the arguments in the Blackwell Companion over those of Aquinas and Clarke.

A few days from now I plan on writing a post at my blog (The Uncredible Hallq, Google it) explaining some of the weaknesses of the arguments for those interested in a discussion of that, but here I'm keeping my comments focused on advice for people thinking of buying/borrowing the book. My final verdict is if you're in acquisitions at a university library, you should certainly buy this for your library, and people with a serious interest in philosophy of religion should take a look at this book if they can do so for free. But individuals who can't get it for free probably have better things to spend their money on, and won't really be missing all that much.

Although the book is promoted as providing cutting-edge treatment of natural theology and contributions from first-rate philosophers, this reviewer begs to disagree.

The known intricacy of philosophical arguments for the existence of God fails to square with our concept of a caring God, who, if he intends his existence to be known, can be expected to make it comprehensible in simplest form to virtually everyone with a clear mind. So if one searches for proof of God's existence, one should find it in the most common experiences and inferences made use of in the course of anyone's life, not in, as the book's promotion also states, arguments in light of the most current, state-of-the-art philosophical and scientific discussions.

The argument that has had the most plausibility with the general public is the Teleological Argument, based on the supposition that we can find purpose in the world. A version of the argument, concentrating on the fine-tuning of the universe for life, is considered in the 4th chapter of the book. However, a version articulated about two centuries ago by William Paley is one that was most widely embraced, for understandable reasons. He pointed to familiar human artifacts like a watch and its purposeful design, and reasoned that the equally purposeful organization in living things can likewise be held to presuppose a designer.

This is a simple and appealing argument, although lacking conclusiveness. Analogies can be nice but are often misleading, failing to demonstrate a fact. Neither do other, much more elaborate arguments for the existence of God, such as presented in this book, succeed at demonstration. This but forces me to call attention again to my own work, which has been largely overlooked.

However doubtful the claim, I show that a teleological argument, the seeking of purpose in nature, can be fruitful on ordinary grounds, as can the conclusion of a higher power. A full treatment, alongside other findings, is in my book, with more on my website under my last name, and on these Amazon pages.