RESUME BUKU PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: AN INTRODUCTION

WILLIAM L. ROWE 4th EDITION

Disusun oleh : Afina Binti Mohammad Borhan (11830325292)

Introduction

th
In the preface of the 4 edition, Rowe relates the development of

philosophy of religion in the 21st century with the ability of religious

thinkers to demonstrate that religious belief supports rational arguments,

growth in the understanding of non-Western religious traditions and con-

tinued interest in the problem of evil. He indicates his intention to address

the reasons behind the development of this field of study. Rowe divides

the topics of discussion into eleven chapters. In the introduction, the

author indicates that philosophy of religion examines basic religious

beliefs as well as the major conceptions of God that emerged in Western

civilization, namely theistic ideas of God (p. 1-3).

Chapter 1

Rowe starts the first chapter discussing the idea of God by

mentioning the supposed accurate prediction by Bishop Robinson.

1
 According to Robinson, the idea of God is irrelevant to the needs of this

generation. From pluralism, henotheism, monotheism, God ‘up there’

and ‘out there,’ Robin- son defends his infamous position.

Concentrating on the idea of God as separate from the world and a

spiritual, supremely good, all-powerful, all- knowing and personal

being, great theologians like Augustine, Boethius, Bonaventure,

Avicenna, Anselm, Aquinas and Maimonides are mentioned as

foundational figures. Exploring the attributes of God as omnipotent and

perfect goodness, self-existent and eternal remains crucial in answering

the question of the idea of God. Omnipotence in Aquinas’ Summa

Theologica is seen as God being able to do all things that are possible,

where possibility is defined as relative possibility and absolute

possibility. St. Anselm on the issue of self-existence observes three

cases to consider: something is either explained by another, explained by

nothing or explained by itself, wherein God inevitably exists within his

own nature as he would not be supreme if his existence were due to

something else. To establish divine separation from and independent of

the world and the conception of God as an eternal being, Rowe explores

the Judeo-Christian and Islamic conception of God which have it that

the world is entirely distinct from God while the divine relates to the

meaning of eternity as God is not bound by the law of time

Chapter 2

2
 The second chapter of Rowe’s book provides readers with the

cosmological arguments explaining the first part of the argument while

expanding on the concepts of a dependent-being and a self-existent

being. After offering a historical overview of the cosmological

argument, the self-existent being and the dependent being concepts

further clarify the first part of this argument. The dependent being is

explained as a being whose existence is accounted for by the causal

activity of other things whereas the self-existentbeing remains a being

whose existence is explained by its own nature. The Principle of

Sufficient Reason (PSR) was first developed by St.Anselm, and later

improved by Leibniz and Clarke. The PSR establishes that there must be

an explanation for the existence of any being and of any positive fact. It

also explains that not every being that exists can be a dependent being.

However, criticisms exist, such as that which asserts that the collection

of dependent beings is not itself a dependent being any more than a

collection of stamps is itself a stamp, and that the collection itself must

have a cause. Citing some errors on the part of critics, proponents

continue to defend the argument. Complementing what was already

discussed is the kalam (scholastic) theology argument, a cosmological

argument which claims it is impossible for an actual infinite to exist,

against Samuel Clark’s version

Chapter 3

3
 The third chapter discusses the ontological argument that was

credited to St. Anselm as the most important part of his Proslogium. This

famous ontological argument posits God as the being ‘than which none

greater’ is possible. It also adds that the existence of God in understanding

means His existence in reality. It concludes therefore that God is greater

(than which none greater is possible) since he both exists in understanding

and reality. His reduction argument is supposed to guide the fool to the

belief of God’s existence. In a sharp criticism, Gaunilo, in his “On behalf

of the fool,” sought to prove that Anselm’s argument was mistaken by

postulating an example of an island, claiming instead he prefers to use the

island against which none greater is found. In his reply to Gaunilo, Anselm

insisted his reasoning applies only to God and to none else. However,

Anselm could not say why his argument could not be applied to the island.

th
Kant, with his sharp criticism of Anselm in the 18 century, is by far the

most famous critic of the argument. There are two parts of his claim:

existence being quality or predicate and existence just like wisdom and

unlike physical size, is a great-making quality or predi-cate. According to

the objection, existence is not a predicate at all and since Anselm’s third

premise suggests a predicate it must be rejected. The third criticism of

Anselm’s argument questions the premise that God might existed in reality,

while the third objection rejects the very definition Ansel moffered of God

4
Chapter 4

Discussion in the fourth chapter centers on the old and new design

argu- ment, most famously explained by David Hume’s Dialogue

Concerning Natural Religions. Rowe offers the example of a machine to

clarify what Hume wrote: machines are produced by intelligent design, and

as the universe re- sembles a machine, it follows that the universe was

produced by intelligent design. The design argument seeks to answer the

question of whether our universe was the result of an intelligent design.

However, there arise questions as to whether the universe might actually

be likened to a machine. William Parley rather compares the universe to a

watch, claiming that every manifestation of design in the watch exists in

the works of nature. The proponents of teleological arguments, like Parley,

claim as the basis of their analogy that in the universe and machines we

find many things and parts of things that are teleological systems,

perceiving a human eye, for instance, as a teleological system. Rowe

observes that the design argument seemed not able to explain why nature

contains so many organisms whose various parts are so well adapted to

their survival. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution provided a new

hypothesis after the design argument lost some of its persuasive force.

Meanwhile Behe, in disagreement with Darwin, proposed the mouse trap

as an example of irreducible complexity and was supported in his claim by

Kenneth Miller. As a theist, Miller, however, disagrees with Behe as a

matter of belief, asserting that the universe is God’s creation and that the

5
big bang supports this notion David Hume, in his Dialogue Concer- ning

Natural Religion, offers a classical attack against the design argument when

he states not that the universe was too vast to resemble a machine, but that

some vast parts of it still remain in chaos. In several of his arguments

against design, Hume proposes that the argument cannot explain theism.

th
The new design argument emerged in the 20 century, and unlike the old

design proponents, these new proponents do not start their arguments on

the basis of the existence of living things. They rather ask of the condition

of the universe and whether it is possible for living things to exist in it.

Using the big bang theory, they claim the chance of existence is much less

than one in a million. Miller claims that since humans can make

observations only of their own universe, evidence cannot be obtained to

determine the accuracy of the multiple universes hypotheses. That an

alternative to a supernatu- ral creator could exist remains a genuine

possibility since we lack eviden- ce for multiple universe hypothesis

(MUH). Rowe dedicates a portion of this chapter to discuss the viability of

the three arguments, i.e. cosmological, ontological and teleological, in

establishing the existence of a theistic God. He concludes, however, that

both cosmological and ontological arguments have failed to prove the

existence of God. Though teleology helped much in that regard, it would

have been more helpful if it had resorted to providing solid rational

grounds for some aspect of the theistic God. However, the traditional

6
 arguments’ failures to prove the existence of God should not be taken to

mean they are worthless

Chapter 5

The fifth chapter discusses religious and mystical experience.

Although Rowe admits it is difficult to give an all-encompassing definition

for religi ous experience, he references Schleiermacher’s ideas, as

examined by Rudolf Otto, that a religious experience is an experience

wherein one is overcome by the feeling of absolute dependence. In other

words, it is an experience in which one senses the immediate presence of

the divine. The non-mystical experience senses the presence of the divine

as a being distinct from oneself, while the mystical experience senses one’s

own union with a divine presence. The mystical experience can, he notes,

be either an extroverted experience or introverted experience .The main

difficulty in religious experience is the distinction of divine being since

mystics in various religions have myriads of experiences. Faith and reason

in the sixth chapter are explored by arguments concerning whether there

are rational grounds to support the basic claims of theistic religions or not,

and whether it is rational or irrational to accept religion on the basis of faith.

Aquinas’ and James’ views on faith provide a fair introduction to faith-

rationality debates surrounding religious beliefs. For Aquinas, reason is

necessary, yet faith goes beyond rationality. A more radical view,

contrasted with that of St. Aquinas, is that of James’, who claims that

7
 faith is weak in relation to reason. Using Clifford’s famous ship-owner

ethic story, James establishes that the will to believe is an attack in itself

against Clifford’s view. Though he agrees with him to an extent, he parts

ways with him by claiming that reason weighs a belief in terms of the

evidence for or against it. James’ religious hypothesis dictates that what is

supreme is eternal and we are better off if we believe what is best is eternal.

While some theists argue that arguments for the existence of God and the

facts of religious experience provide sufficient rational grounds for

believing in God, atheists on the other hand see the problem of evil as

sufficient to disbelieve in His existence. Dedicating the rest of the pages to

James’ work on the defense of his hypotheses and passionate belief, Rowe

puts forwards arguments by James on the defense of the right to believe as

we wish concerning the theistic hypotheses. The theist according to him

risks error due to his inadequate evidence supporting belief in God.

Plantinga, stressing the properly basic belief in God, claims that belief

should be basic and, in the broader sense, evidence is applicable.

Chapter 7

In the seventh chapter, discussing the problem of evil, Rowe takes

the reader through the earlier chapters, from all the subsequent arguments

to establish the existence of God, while acknowledging that the most

formidable of all those difficulties is that of the problem of evil. In this

chapter, the two forms of the problem of evil are discussed: the evidential

8
 and logical forms. By the logical form several traditional premises were

discussed, agreed to and disagreed to with the free will defense. The

evidential problem seeks to justify the problem of evil by postulating that

suffering may lead to a greater good. Rowe agrees that the logical form

seemed not a problem for the theists but the evidential form proponents,

who argue that God does not exist, appears to be plausible. The skeptical

theists’ response to the evidential form proposes that the reason the human

mind is baffled by this state of affair is simply because it does not know

enough. Stephen Wykstra, a skeptical theist, cites the example of a dog in a

garage to explain the issue more clearly. Theodicy then comes with an

attempt to explain the probable purposes of God for permitting the

profusion of evil in our world. Hick sees that suffering is necessary to

ensure compassion, sympathy and even deterrence. Moore also provides a

procedure which he proposes as the ideal procedure for theists to follow.

Chapter 8

The position of miracle and its impact in the modern world form

th
the basis of the 8 chapter. This chapter is concerned with whether it

remains possible to believe in miracles and whether it is reasonable to

believe that a miracle has truly occurred. Bultmann disagrees with the

compatibility of miracle and science. To him, a modern world view leaves

little or no room for spirits. Rowe agrees with Bultmann that it is

9
 more difficult to believe in miracles than it once was. Hume’s

definition of miracle as a transgression of a law of nature by the volition of

a deity is objected to by the likes of C. D. Broad, who does not agree that a

miracle has violated the laws of nature. But problems still remain, as the

conditions an event must satisfy to constitute a genuine miracle are not

clear, as well as whether it is ever reasonable to believe that a genuine

miracle has occurred as technology and science are creating more disbelief

in miracles.

Chapter 9

The ninth chapter addresses the myths and realities of life after

death.Rowe brings into this chapter ancient ideas about death which are

Platonic and Homeric. While the Homeric believed in the immortality of

humans,Platonic reserved immortality to the gods only (p. 148). The final

form ofbelief in the idea of life after death is associated with the issue of

resurrectionof the body. The conceptual and factual questions seek to

probe the idea of the survival of the human person or the soul after death.

While conviction asks whether the conviction is meaningful, the factual

asks whether the conviction is true. The philosophical argument on the

immortality of the soul rests on the Platonic view that the soul is

immaterial and a purely spiritual substance. The scientific argument of the

proxy sitting in the Super Extra-sensory Perception Hypothesis explains

human persons’ survival of bodily death with Bertrand Russell also setting

10
 the general theme of the scientific argument against immortality. The

theological argument relies on the belief that a theistic God exists. Rowe,

however, sums it up by saying that unless a good reason is provided to

accept theism, there exists no reason to believe in the personal survival

after bodily death. On the issues of predestination, divine knowledge and

human freedom

Chapter 10

In the 10th chapter, Rowe explains that before eternity God knew

whatever would come to pass, including our free choices and acts that

were not pre- determined. He discusses the philosophical and theological

reflections of the freedom of will which consists of doing what one wants

or chooses to do. John Locke postulates two men in rooms with different

conditions. On the power to do otherwise, it is contested also that human

freedom is inconsistent with divine predestination. The problem lies in

divine foreknowledge and human freedom. Rowe admits there is no

absolute solution to this problem. On human freedom it is agreed that an

inadequate idea of human freedom makes us unaware of exactly how free

or less free we are. Rowe uses the time logic with other examples to

explain ‘what is in human power’ as ‘that which has not happened’. He

also explains ‘what is not in human power’ as ‘that which is in the past’.

Ockham maintains that facts about divine foreknowledge, which are used

as the basis for denying human freedom, are facts about the past though

11
 not simply about the past. However, defining God as eternal and infinite

sets Him as timeless and existing outside of time, as the famous

philosopher Boethius says.

Chapter 11

th
The 11 chapter, which marks the last chapter, discusses how a

particular religion should or may view other religions in a world of many

religions. Discussing this, exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism are

brought to light. Pluralism against all odds as promoted by Hick, though

conceptualized long before him by Tillic, seems to validate all religions as

parts of the whole universal being. Hick propounds the three blind men and

the mighty elephant parable to explain his point. Inclusivists, on other

hand, rather consider non- Christians in other places where the gospel is

yet to reach as part of divine salvation due to their inability of reaching the

gospel. The exclusivist holds the belief that truth lies within her own

religion and that any other religion holding a different or opposing view is

false. The three sections in their quest to define themselves in the world of

many religions rather end up defining the fate of other religions in their

dogmas. The remainder of the pages provide a glossary of important

concepts as well as references for further reading. In general, the book is

intended to be easily understood regardless of one’s background. The

textbook introduces one to debates in philosophy of religion in a

comprehensive way. Whether it is the philosophical proofs for God’s

12
existence or the use of reason to evaluate faith claims, the major points in

the philosophy of religion are covered in this excellent textbook. Rowe,

despite the bulky nature of the subject matter, tries to cover the crucial

and the nitty-gritties in less than 222 pages. Rowe’s excellent way of

providing questions for review at the end of every chapter speaks volumes

about his preparedness to engage his readers. The language used is very

easy to understand and the logic together with the practical examples he

cites make his analysis very clear. Though in many cases Rowe makes use

of the Christian faith due to his inclination to it, he could have been more

open and general as far as philosophy of religion is concerned by covering

the Asiatic religions in the topics he raises and discusses. Besides that,

Rowe, in his discussion of the scholastic theology (Kalam), offered more

general rather than specific explanations. In many cases Muslim

philosophers like the peripatetic philosophers in the likes of Ibn Sina were

also overlooked. In the case of the problem of evil, the contributions of Al

Ghazali should have been mentioned. While I agree that most Muslim

philosophers have roots in Greek philosophy, discussing their thoughts

could have expanded the discourse and provided enlightening and thought-

provoking arguments.

13