Return to Reason: A Critique of Enlightenment Evidentialism, and a Defense of Reason and Belief in God [Paperback]

Kelly James Clark (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 1, 1990

A penetrating critique of the Enlightenment assumption of evidentialism-that belief in God requires the support of evidence or arguments to be rational. Garnering arguments from C. S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Thomas Reid, William James, and John Calvin, Clark asserts that this Enlightenment demand for evidence is itself both irrelevant and irrational.

Product Details

• Paperback: 172 pages
• Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (March 1, 1990)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 080280456X
• ISBN-13: 978-0802804563
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.4 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #916,807 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A much needed criticism of evangelical Apologetics, September 7, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: Return to Reason: A Critique of Enlightenment Evidentialism, and a Defense of Reason and Belief in God (Paperback)

I personally enjoyed and benefited from reading this thoughtful book by a philosopher who is concerned about communicating at the lay-level. Many abstract ideas and ideologies are explained is concrete form. More specifically, the author's exposition of "Reformed Epistemology" as a more credible view than the traditional evidentialist approach is illuminating to say the least. A much needed critique of evagelical Apologetics is given. I think that Christians in general and we who identify ourselves as "evangelicals" in particular should follow the authors argument closely and not fall prey to the "rhetoric" of evangelical apologists like R.C. Sproul or Ravi Zacharias. The approach used by these Apologists and their like reveal a lack of philosophical rigor practised at the academic level. Florid expression is not a substitute for needed content. Quoting philosophers does not make one philosophically rigorous. It is the ignorance of "evangelicals" on various philosophical topics that continues to sustain their approach. A deeper understanding of rationality and the way in which we form beliefs and our way of "being-in-the-world" runs contrary to the evidentialist approach as James Kelly Clark so adequately shows. We evangelicals needs to turn to a more serious study of those who are making inroads at the academic level, Plantinga, Wolterstroff etc. The road may by rough by in the end our understanding will be sharpened. The time has come to move beyond simplistic formulas to thoughtful meditations. And this book, may I commend does just that.

25 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent argument, Wrong conclusion, August 14, 2002

By 

James Arvo (Pasadena, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Return to Reason: A Critique of Enlightenment Evidentialism, and a Defense of Reason and Belief in God (Paperback)

I enjoyed this book tremendously. While I disagree fundamentally with the position argued in this book, I have nothing but high praise for the author. Clark writes masterfully; his summaries of philosophical ideas, even those espoused by his foes, are concise, accurate, and scholarly. Every sentence is well crafted and carefully reasoned. You will not find an ad hominum attack or a circular argument in this book.

Clark's thesis is that the existence of god is not a proposition that is appropriate to deem true or false based on an accumulation of evidence, as we would approach a scientific theory. Rather, it is a truth that is apprehended immediately and rationally in essentially the same manner that one immediately apprehends other minds, without subsequent need of rational proof. Clark maintains that "evidentialism" has been misapplied to theistic arguments, arguing that one does not base inter-personal relationships on objective evidence (at least not entirely), and thus it should be with man's relation to god.

Ironically, I find Clark an unwitting ally of atheism. I reason as follows. It is well known that the human mind is strongly predisposed to perceiving human faces and human intentions, even where none exist. We see faces in clouds and rocks, and ascribe intentions and attitudes to inanimate objects quite readily. A very likely explanation for this peculiar bias is that such perceptions are an over-generalization of the same mental machinery that allows us to immediately apprehend other humans and to assess their motives; a cognitive ability that is basic to all social interaction. With respect to this faculty false positives are far less troublesome than are false negatives, which is consistent with our innate tendency toward over-generalization. From this perspective, one can read Clark's entire book as a vehement first-hand account that betrays the source of religious conviction as a cognitive error; a result of a cognitive mechanism that is searching for evidence of human presence, and is apt to over generalize. In this light it is far more likely that the palpable sense of god's presence is an epiphenomenon of mind, not a perception of reality; in short, an illusion. (Theists will no doubt argue that this inherent sense is itself evidence of god's hand. This is an entirely different conjecture that would demands its own supporting evidence.)

Despite our diametrically opposed viewpoints, I concur with most of Clark's central argument -- we differ only on the ultimate inference drawn. Clark believes he has demonstrated the rationality of belief in god; I believe he has plainly exposed it as an illusion. Alas, even the most carefully crafted arguments seem only to widen the gulf between theist and atheist.

I gave this book four stars instead of five, not because Clark failed to reach the same conclusion as I did, but because he assiduously avoided asking the critically important question: How is it that our immediate apprehension of other minds can be trusted as valid evidence for god's existence? In particular, there are two enormous problems with Clark's premise that he does not address: 1) Our perception of other minds is on occasion demonstrably wrong, and 2) There is no evidence that this faculty has any validity whatsoever beyond the realm of natural human experience. Thus, not only is it possible that one's apprehension of god is in fact mistaken (i.e. has no referent), but there is absolutely no basis for claiming that it is applicable to a supposed supernatural realm. Unless Clark can face these obstacles squarely, and overcome them, the more parsimonious conclusion is that the apprehension of god is a mundane illusion, just as Freud and others have surmised.

The argument that the "perception" of god is in fact a common cognitive error (due to over-generalization) is explored and supported extensively by several authors, including Guthrie ("Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion") and more recently by Boyer ("Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought"). I urge everyone who has read Clark's book to read either Gurhtie's book or Boyer's book. I emphatically urge those who have read either of the latter two books to read Clark's book; it is a most startling admission in the light of recent insights into the human psyche.

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Well Organized Intro to Plantinga et al, January 19, 2000

By 

Perry C. Robinson "Perry Robinson" (Saint Louis, MO United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Return to Reason: A Critique of Enlightenment Evidentialism, and a Defense of Reason and Belief in God (Paperback)

Clark's work is a well organized introduction to the philosophy of religion as understood by Alvin Platinga. If you are looking for Platinga "made easy" this is certainly the place to begin. The work weaves together discussions on the role of evidence, basic beliefs, the problem of evil, and "forced" decisions. If the reader is interested in philosophy of religion in the same general tradition, I recommend Roy Clouser's, The Myth of Religious Neutrality(An Intro to Dooyeweerd's thought), Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic(Intro to Cornelius Van Til's thought) and Gordon Clark's, Religion, Reason and Revelation. All of these works in concert with Kelly J. Clark's contribution form a nice introduction to the Reformed outlook on philosophy of religion.