Customer Reviews

God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytic Defense of Theism (Frontiers of Philosophy)

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

 

 

The topics covered in Parsons's book are: (1) Alvin Plantinga's attempt to show that theistic belief can be rational even without positive arguments in its favour, (2) Richard Swinburne's cosmological argument, and (3) the problem of evil.

The aim of the book is, presumably, to introduce uninitiated readers to some of the issues currently at the forefront of philosophical theology. It meets this aim brilliantly. The clarity and simplicity of Parsons's writing allow the reader to fully understand the arguments being considered. At the same time, he is careful not to oversimplify, with the result that his critiques are no less incisive for their nontechnicality. I am not aware of any book that offers a better introduction to the issues Parsons considers. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any way the book could be significantly improved -- save, perhaps, a halving of its somewhat ridiculous cost price.

One word of warning: all of the material Parsons presents can be found elsewhere -- for example, in Michael Martin's _Atheism: A Philosophical Justification_. Thus, if you have already read (and understood) Martin's book, there would be little point buying _God: and the Burden of Proof_. On the other hand, if you are as yet unfamiliar with the arguments of Plantinga and Swinburne (two of today's leading theologians), there is no better place to start than Parsons's book. Highly recommended.

In debating the existence of God, a fundamental question is who -- if anyone -- should bear the burden of proof. In _God and the Burden of Proof_, Keith Parsons explains why theists (but not atheists) bear the burden of proof. Along the way, he manages to provided a nontechnical response to two of the most influential theistic philosophers of our time, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. Highly recommended, despite the book's excessive cost. -- Jeffery Jay Lowde

Extremely clear writing style. Parsons assumes only an intro level of philosophical knowledge. He is rarely condescending and this is particularly refreshing in the era of in-your-face atheism. Still, every now and then Parsons can't help but sneer. For example, in his conclusion Parsons writes,

"What rightly offends secular humanists is the...persecuting zeal that all too often accompany theistic belief...[like] the crusade against abortion..." (p145).

He then states that this sometimes leads atheists to shout: "Crush the infamous thing!" (the "thing" is institutional theism). However, I think Parsons assumes too much here. The biggest assumption is that one needs to be religious (or use religious arguments) to oppose abortion. I want to note that there are atheists strongly opposed to abortion. Patrick Lee has penned a brilliant, secular defense of the pro-life position called "Abortion and Unborn Human Life." Lee is not an atheist, but he makes a secular, pro-life argument. Thus, it is a mistake to automatically link pro-life arguments to religious arguments.

This contention on my part, however, is minor; save for this one example, Parsons handles the theist/atheist debate very gracefully. Overall, the book is excellent. If you're interested in the God debate, you need to read this. Very much recommended.

Keith Parsons has written an amazingly lucid critique of the current analytic philosophy of religion. Chapter one of God and the Burden of Proof shows that Alvin Plantinga's defense of theism as being a properly basic belief is no better than Linus's basic belief in The Great Pumpkin. Chapter two explains Richard Swinburne's cosmological argument so clearly that its flaws are obvious. Chapter 3 defends the problem of evil and concludes that it is a very effective attack on theism. For those who found the critiques of Plantinga and Swinburne in Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification rough going, Parsons's explanation is much more accessible.