{"product_id":"contemporary-debates-in-philosophy-of-religion-isbn-9781119028451","title":"Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLively debates on controversial and compelling questions in the philosophy of religion — an updated edition of the bestselling title\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding upon the reputation of the first edition, the extensively revised second edition of \u003ci\u003eContemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion\u003c\/i\u003e features fifteen essays which present arguments on some of the most central and controversial topics in philosophy of religion from the discipline’s most influential thinkers. Considering questions of both emerging and perennial interest from atheistic, theistic, and agnostic viewpoints, the book adopts the series structure which pairs essays espousing opposing perspectives on a particular question or theme in an engaging pro and con format.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing accessible introductions to each debate, the volume’s new and newly-revised contributions set the stage for thoughtful and lively discourse between philosophers in philosophy of religion and analytic theology. Debates range from vigorous disagreements between theists and their critics to arguments between theists of different philosophical and theological persuasions, highlighting points of contrast for readers while showcasing the field’s leading minds in dialogue. The head-to-head chapters offer forceful advocacy for some of the most compelling ideas, beliefs, and objections in the philosophy of religion, opening the conversation up to students to weigh the arguments and engage in comparative analysis of the concepts for themselves.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWritten to appeal to the non-specialist as well as the professional philosopher, \u003ci\u003eContemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion\u003c\/i\u003e is ideal as both a provocative primary text for coursework in analytical theology and philosophy of religion, and as a broad survey of the field for scholars and general readers with an interest in the questions which underpin contemporary philosophy of religion and theology.\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotes on Contributors ix\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreface to the First Edition xv\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePreface to the Second Edition xvii\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements xix\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eArguments for Religious Belief 1\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1 Does the Universe Have a Cause? 3\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: The Universe Has a Cause 3\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eRobert C. Koons\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: The Universe Does Not Have a Cause 13\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eGraham Oppy\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to \u003ci\u003eOppy\u003c\/i\u003e 22\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to \u003ci\u003eKoons\u003c\/i\u003e 24\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2 Is Fine‐Tuning Evidence that God Exists? 27\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Fine‐Tuning is Evidence that God Exists 27\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eRobin Collins\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Fine‐Tuning is Not Evidence that God Exists 37\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eElliott Sober\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to Sober 48\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to Collins 50\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3 Is God Necessary for Morality? 55\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: God is Necessary for Morality 55\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eMark D. Linville\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Atheism, Naturalism, and Morality 66\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eLouise Antony\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Antony\u003c\/i\u003e 79\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Linville\u003c\/i\u003e 81\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4 Does Religious Experience Justify Religious Belief ? 85\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Religious Experience Justifies Religious Belief 85\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eWilliam P. Alston\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Do Mystics See God? 94\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eEvan Fales\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to Fales 106\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to Alston 110\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5 Does Testimony about Miracles Provide Evidence for Religion? 113\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: The Case for Miracles 113\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eCharity Anderson and Alexander Pruss\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Testimony about Miracles Does Not Provide Evidence 123\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eArif Ahmed\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Ahmed\u003c\/i\u003e 132\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Anderson\u003c\/i\u003e and \u003ci\u003ePruss\u003c\/i\u003e 134\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eChallenges to Religious Belief 137\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6 Is Evil Evidence against Belief in God? 139\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Evil is Evidence against God’s Existence 139\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eWilliam L. Rowe\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Evil Does Not Make Atheism More Reasonable Than Theism 148\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eDaniel Howard-Snyder and Michael Bergmann\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Howard‐Snyder\u003c\/i\u003e and\u003ci\u003e Bergmann\u003c\/i\u003e 160\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Rowe\u003c\/i\u003e 162\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7 Does Divine Hiddenness Justify Atheism? 165\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Divine Hiddenness Justifies Atheism 165\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eJ. L. Schellenberg\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Divine Hiddenness Does Not Justify Atheism 176\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003ePaul K. Moser\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to \u003ci\u003eMoser\u003c\/i\u003e 187\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to \u003ci\u003eSchellenberg\u003c\/i\u003e 189\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8 Does Science Discredit Religion? 193\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Science Discredits Religion 193\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eMichael Ruse\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Science Does Not Discredit Religion 202\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eMichael L. Peterson\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Peterson\u003c\/i\u003e 212\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Ruse\u003c\/i\u003e 214\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e9 Is the God of the Hebrew Bible Perfectly Good? 219\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: The God of Ancient Israel is Not Perfectly Good 219\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eWes Morriston\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: The Perfect Goodness of God in the Hebrew Scriptures 229\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eMark C. Murphy\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Murphy\u003c\/i\u003e 238\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Morriston\u003c\/i\u003e 240\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e10 Is it Reasonable to Believe That Only One Religion is True? 243\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: It is Reasonable to Believe That Only One Religion is True 243\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eDavid Basinger\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: It is Not Reasonable to Believe That Only One Religion is True 252\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003ePeter Byrne\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Byrne\u003c\/i\u003e 261\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Basinger\u003c\/i\u003e 264\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIssues Within Religion 267\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e11 Is Evidence Required for Religious Belief ? 269\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Evidence is Required for Religious Belief 269\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eBlake McAllister\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Evidence is Not Required for Religious Belief 279\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eRaymond J. VanArragon\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e VanArragon\u003c\/i\u003e 287\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e McAllister\u003c\/i\u003e 290\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e12 Should we Think of God as Masculine? 293\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position A: Is God a Man? 293\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eMichael Rea\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position B: God is Not Male 302\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eKathryn Pogin\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Pogin\u003c\/i\u003e 310\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Rea\u003c\/i\u003e 312\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e13 Does God Take Risks in Governing the World? 317\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: God Takes Risks 317\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eWilliam Hasker\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: God Does Not Take Risks 326\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003ePaul Helm\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to \u003ci\u003eHelm\u003c\/i\u003e 335\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to \u003ci\u003eHasker\u003c\/i\u003e 337\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e14 Should Christians Endorse Mind‐Body Dualism? 341\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Christians Should Affirm Mind‐Body Dualism 341\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eDean W. Zimmerman\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: Christians Should Reject Mind‐Body Dualism 353\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eLynne Rudder Baker\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Baker\u003c\/i\u003e 363\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Zimmerman\u003c\/i\u003e 366\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e15 Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Concept of God? 369\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffirmative Position: Eternal Hell and the Christian Concept of God 369\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eJerry L. Walls\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Position: No Hell 379\u003cbr\u003e \u003ci\u003eThomas Talbott\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Talbott\u003c\/i\u003e 387\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReply to\u003ci\u003e Walls\u003c\/i\u003e 388\u003c\/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndex 391\u003c\/p\u003e  \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMichael L. Peterson\u003c\/b\u003e is Professor of Philosophy at Asbury Theological Seminary. He has written and edited numerous books, and is the general editor of the Wiley Blackwell \u003ci\u003eExploring Philosophy of Religion\u003c\/i\u003e series. His research focuses on the philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, the problem of evil, and the science-religion relationship. \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRaymond J. VanArragon\u003c\/b\u003e is Professor of Philosophy at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. He is the author of \u003ci\u003eKey Terms in Philosophy of Religion\u003c\/i\u003e (2010), and his work focuses on epistemology and the philosophy of religion.     \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMust religious belief be based on evidence? Is God necessary for morality? Does science discredit religion?\u003c\/b\u003e \t \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding upon the reputation of the first edition, the extensively revised second edition of \u003ci\u003eContemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion\u003c\/i\u003e features fifteen essays which present arguments on some of the most central and controversial topics in philosophy of religion from the discipline's most influential thinkers. Considering questions of both emerging and perennial interest from atheistic, theistic, and agnostic viewpoints, the book adopts the series structure which pairs essays espousing opposing perspectives on a particular question or theme in an engaging pro and con format.  \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing accessible introductions to each debate, the volume's new and newly-revised contributions set the stage for thoughtful and lively discourse between philosophers in philosophy of religion and analytic theology. Debates range from vigorous disagreements between theists and their critics to arguments between theists of different philosophical and theological persuasions, highlighting points of contrast for readers while showcasing the field's leading minds in dialogue. The head-to-head chapters offer forceful advocacy for some of the most compelling ideas, beliefs, and objections in the philosophy of religion, opening the conversation up to students to weigh the arguments and engage in comparative analysis of the concepts for themselves. \u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWritten to appeal to the non-specialist as well as the professional philosopher, \u003ci\u003eContemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion\u003c\/i\u003e is ideal as both a provocative primary text for coursework in analytical theology and philosophy of religion, and as a broad survey of the field for scholars and general readers with an interest in the questions which underpin contemporary philosophy of religion and theology.\u003c\/p\u003e","brand":"Wiley-Blackwell","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47988981858533,"sku":"NP9781119028451","price":37.5,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":false}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/1842\/7735\/files\/9781119028451.jpg?v=1761782305","url":"https:\/\/k12savings.com\/products\/contemporary-debates-in-philosophy-of-religion-isbn-9781119028451","provider":"K12savings","version":"1.0","type":"link"}