Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Kelley James Clark's book introduced me to philosophy, which is now my career. His attempt to free God from God's historical philosophical chains is uplifting, academic and educational. Truly a book that demands to be read by fundamentalists and liberal Christians as well as atheists and non-Christian theists. Good work!

A quick table of contents:

1. The issue of evidence 2. God and Evil 3. The roles of evidence and belief 4. Reformed epistemology

He ends with a wonderful conclusion about the faith of his grandmother, which offers us a very pragmatic view of faith. An over all good book!

One of my favorite types of books is a concise introduction that is also opinionated. Kelley James Clark has written just such a book on the philosophy of religion. It is a presentation of that topic from a position that has been called "Reformed epistemology." As I understand it, Reformed epistemology is an attempt to develop a Calvinistic approach to the philosophy of religion based on the teachings of Calvin, as taught most recently by Alvin Plantinga. My knowledge of Calvin is quite limited and I haven't read anything by Plantinga, so I can't opine on whether Prof. Clark adequately sets forth their positions (although I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his presentation). RETURN TO REASON doesn't deal with all the topics you would find in a standard survey book; for example, all the arguments for God's existence aren't dealt with. However, he does present an excellent discussion of the cosmological argument and the argument from design, and many other subjects. The best part of the book is a discussion of the failings of traditional ("evidential") apologetics. Many apologists for Christianity have argued that one shouldn't believe in God without proof, and that reason must some how validate revelation. Prof. Clark shows the pitfalls of this approach, which has its origins in the Enlightenment. For example, we often believe things - such as the existence of other minds or an external world without reflection, much less proof. Also, is a child wrong to believe in God without having studied the proofs for God's existence?

I would have liked to see some interaction with other Reformed apologists. There is no mention of Cornelius van Til or Gordon Clark, two of the 20th century's best known American apologists, both staunch Calvinists. What makes Prof. Plantinga's work more "Reformed" than their's?

This book came out in 1990. A more recent statement of Prof. Clark's views can be found in FIVE VIEWS ON APOLOGETICS, Cowan, ed. (Zondervan 2000), where he interacts with the views of other apologetic traditions.

This is a great book !!! You dont need any background in philosophy to understand this. I wish that I had read this book before I attempted to read many other articles in contemporary philosophy of religion, because reading this would have made reading those articles much easier, given me a background and a context to work with, and also have saved some time.

This book would also be good for a Intro. to Phil course or a Phil. of Religion course. The presentation of Plantinga's Free Will Defense is especially good. Gave me a head rush, when I understood it.

Another comment: Also a very good apologetics book, for those interested in defending Christianity from a philosophical point of view. Actually I've learned more and better philosophical apologetics here than in any other apologetics book.

Go read it. I strongly recommend it.

Kelly James Clark exposes the epistemic weakness of some modern apologetic schools, atheism, and skepticism. As an astute adherent of Plantinga's work he parts company with the majority of contemporary Christian apologists; and he has his reasons for this dismissal as he exposes the believer's and the unbeliever's "rhetorical excesses."

In this small yet argument-laden treatise Clark discusses:

- the Russell v. Copleston debate and its chief epistemic question
- the non-contention of a self-created universe
- the "person-relative proofs" and evidence for God's existence
- a reasonable demand for proper proof
- a reasoned answer to the problem of evil (perhaps the best condensed philosophical solution I have read in a book addressed to laymen)
- the pastoral aspect of comforting those who are suffering
- that theism does not require propositional evidence for its rational support
- W. K. Clifford and William James on the ethics of belief
- the belief in other minds in relation to belief in theism
- refuting foundationalism
- rejecting evidentialism
- and more (believe it or not)

James, on the back of his extensive philosophical analysis, contends that "Plantinga's free will defense has successfully refuted the atheologian's charge that God and evil are logically incompatible" (p. 77).

Clark is never "long on promise and short on fulfillment." He offers a thought provoking and emotional fulfilling apologetic outlook. I urge everyone with interests in religious epistemology or the problem of evil to purchase and study this persistent and captivating book.
Letter to an Atheist Nation: Presupositional Apologetics Responds To: Letter to a Christian

Review of Kelly James Clark's Return to Reason

Argument and Critique
Clark begins his book by critiquing some of the more popular arguments for the existence of God. He seeks to refute the evidentialist's standards for reason. This includes critiquing Christian arguments that assume that worldview. In short, the cosmological argument is inadequate because it arbitrarily uses the principle of sufficient reason: for every positive fact or truth there is a sufficient reason for why that fact obtains and why that statement is true. This is used to explain why the universe as a whole has a cause. So far so good. Clark critiques the Classical Method on their interaction with objections, the inadequacy of natural theology, and the fallaciousness of their proofs. Rather, good Christian argumentation is cogent and person-relative: the argument must be sound and the person must recognize it to be sound (44).

God and Evil
He interacts with the standard atheist argument against God because of evil. He then defines and distinguishes theodicy from defense. He proposes, following Alvin Plantinga, a "transworld defense of God's actions in the face of evil." In other words, "if a person suffers from a transworld depravity, then in all the worlds God can create in which that person exists and is free, that person would have freely gone wrong at least once" (73). This removes the logical contradiction in the argument from evil.

Critique of Enlightenment Evidentialism
Clark takes the evidentialism of W.K. Clifford to task in this section. Clifford maintains that we can only believe something--and act on that belief--if we have proper evidence for it. Clark rebuts this using the arguments of William James and C.S. Lewis. Belief in God is a passional decision that can legitimacy be made apart from Clifford's standards of evidence. In short, if we adopt Clifford's approach to evidence, we will have very few true beliefs. In reality no one thinks this way. We hold many beliefs--justifiedly so--apart from such evidence. Also, Clifford's belief is itself a passional decision made apart from evidence.

Belief in God as Properly Basic
Clark, following Alvin Plantinga, argues that God has so constituted our cognitive faculties that we are perfectly rational to believe in him without regard to Enlightenment evidential criteria. This is concurrent with a discussion on Classical Foundationalism, its defects, and a turning to a Reformed Epistemology. Classical Foundationalism--the view that foundational beliefs are self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses--is self-falsifying. In its stead Clark proposes a Reidian epistemology that relies on "common sense." For Clark, belief in God is "properly basic." Properly basic beliefs are those that are foundational and non-inferential.

Conclusion
Clark has a snappy, engaging writing style. He couldn't be boring if he tried. He will strike some readers as arrogant. The book was an excellent, succinct introduction to Reformed Epistemology. I have a few cautions:
1) I am not convinced--yet--of transworld depravity and Plantinga's free-will defense. Maybe he is right. Perhaps 6 months from now I will be won over. But I have to do more thinking on it.
2) Is knowledge "justified" or "warranted"? Is the proof of the Christian God found in the "impossibility of the contrary" (Bahnsen) or is it found in "the God-structured cognitive faculties" of our brain (Plantinga)? I really can't offer a critique at the moment. It would not be fair to Clark. He wrote this book before Plantinga wrote his trilogy. But I do have a few questions regarding it. How is the argument that "belief in God is properly basic" any less question-begging than Bahnsen claiming that the "truth of Christianity is the impossibility of the contrary?" Again, I will pull my punches. The Reformed Epistemologists have answered these questions; I haven't gotten around to all the literature.

Kelly James Clark in an amazingly short breadth of space, recapitulates the contemporary trends in religious epistemology and what has led to them. Reformed Epistemology far from being a fallacious excuse to say it is rational to believe in God, it is an epistemology that recognizes humans cognitive limitations and how it is often perfectly rational to believe without arguments and proof.

Clark pulls from a variety of authorities and makes all at once an interesting introduction to religious epistemology and a convincing case for reformed epistemology.

Dr. Clark tackles the most fundamental of questions. Although the language of the book is fluid and clear, those unpractised in philosophical argument may have a tough time following. The most difficult aspect of the book is the terminology (Evidentialism, Foundationalism, Fideism, Noetic, etc.). It would have been helpful to have a glossary of terms the reader may have referred to or even cut out. Dr. Clark presents both sides of the argument, citing philosophers living and dead. Anyone, especially budding philosophers, attracted to such thought will enjoy the book, which is short. Does it solve the issue? As the author himself suggests, it depends on one's beliefs. He is to be commended for tackling the issue and producing a serious work in a world too lacking in them.