Reviews for Scientific Theism

The average rating for Scientific Theism based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-12-30 00:00:00 Curt Bergeest Good, if limited, introduction, but not encyclopedic It may come as a surprise to some that religion, in particular Christianity, has a philosophy--that is, a closely argued intellectual underpinning. How rigorous and convincing this philosophy is might be discerned through a careful reading of Professor Thiselton's book. First, let me note that the book is mostly about Christianity. Thiselton makes some attempt at including other religions, especially Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but unfortunately the pertinent entries are, on the one hand far too "concise" to be helpful, and on the other reveal that Thiselton is, as he admits, not an expert on these subjects. In the main entry on Buddhism ("Buddhist philosophy") for example, Thiselton writes, "Consciousness is not understood as a stable individual consciousness in the sense held by Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Locke." Instead it is "transitory" and subject to "continuous change." Modern (or probably I should say "postmodern") cognitive science would agree that our consciousness is transitory and continuously changing, yes; but this misses the point of Buddhism. In Buddhism it is better to say that the self does not exist and consciousness is an illusion. Thiselton also writes that "nirvana" is the "extinction of all unproductive or worldly desires." This is not quite correct and again misses the point. Nirvana is the extinction of ALL desire, "productive" or otherwise. To my mind, the great empiricists of the Enlightenment, especially David Hume, more or less buried the idea that Christianity could be justified in a logical sense. This was long before Nietzsche declared that God was dead and before Marx opined that "religion is the opiate of the people." Nonetheless I think it is interesting to read the historical arguments put forward by the great minds of Christianity, especially Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Descartes, etc., and even William Paley, famous for his watchmaker argument for the existence of God. Equally interesting is the retort and refinements from great thinkers like Hegel, Kant, Kierkegaard and others. At times Thiselton's prose gets a bit beclouded and at other times more than a bit mealymouthed. Consider this (he's talking about the controversy over Darwin's The Descent of Man): "It is arguable that a certain narrowness and brittleness on both sides about the incapacity of empirical data to arbitrate on the uniqueness of human personhood as bearing the divine image added confusion rather than light." (p. 90) Uh...could it be that he is saying that no amount of empirical data is going to prove that we are made in God's image? While there is no entry on "intelligent design" or on "design" (or on "creationism," for that matter), Thiselton follows theologian Frederick R. Tennant who wrote that "gradualism of construction is in itself no proof of the absence of...design." Thiselton adds, "Design may be seen in the provision of necessary conditions for the emergence of designed effects by whatever route." (p. 91) In other words, Darwinian evolution is part of God's design. Furthermore, there is always a Designer regardless of how evolved His designs! It is hard to argue with that, and I won't. I also like to have my cake and eat it too. Thiselton's bias often insinuates itself into the text. For example he writes that Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina "underlined the implausibility of an infinite chain of contingent causes, in contrast to the more reasonable explanation that behind all finite causes stood the One Necessary Being, who is neither caused nor contingent." (p. 117) To say that Ibn Sina "underlined the implausibility" is to suggest that the implausibility is somehow established. It isn't. To my mind, at least, the "infinite chain" is no more or no less implausible than the idea of a "Necessary Being." Although somewhat of a skeptic myself, I like Thiselton's witty retort to scepticism: "if sceptics deny the possibility of knowledge, how do I know that I cannot (with more exploration) know?" (p. 276) Indeed there is no certainty in this life. We have only a choice of something that seems more likely or something that seems less likely. I also like Thiselton's statement that "God...is not an 'object'; still less an object in space and time." (p. 121) That coincides nicely with my idea of God. Although my bias about the nature of religion is at odds with that of Professor Thiselton, I nonetheless recommend this concise introduction to the philosophy of religion for undergraduates studying religion. I use the word "introduction" because this book is quite a ways from being encyclopedic, and should more properly be entitled something like "A Concise Compendium of Christian Religious Philosophy with Critiques." One final point: religion is a slippery subject. Especially tricky is the idea of God. Whenever you find yourself talking about God to someone, always be sure that you and that person have the same or a similar definition of God. Thiselton provides a nice introduction to the various ideas and definitions of God in the entry, "God, concepts and 'attributes' of" on pages 118-123. He puts the small quotes around the word "attributes" because as mentioned above his idea of God is outside of time and space and therefore cannot have attributes in the usual sense of the term. --Dennis Littrell, author of "Understanding Religion: Reviews, Essays and Commentary"

Review # 2 was written on 2012-08-24 00:00:00 Doug Smith Very good book explaing the Christian materialist position in a way that does not assume much of the reader in terms of prior knowledge. Corcoran first offers some problems with dualism (in Cartesian and Thomistic forms). He then offers some problems with anthropological materialisms that assume that we are identical to our bodies. He then sets forth his view, arguing that we are not identical to our bodies (as the statue of David is not identical to the slab of marbel that constitutes him) but we are constitued by our bodies, and are so essentially. Next, he argues that a materialst view of human persons can take a strong moral stance on questions of abortion and euthenasia. Corcoran then discusses how his position fits in with the doctrine of the resurrection, finally summing everything up and briefly addressing some favorite dualist verses.