Theism and the Model of Successful Argument

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Islamic Philosophy, Faculty of Theology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran

Abstract

This paper investigates the question, "What is the model of a successful argument in natural theology?" The three criteria of persuasion, acceptance of premises, and cumulative case, which have been proposed to justify or reject theism, are analyzed using an analytical-critical method. The result shows that none of these criteria, due to their limitations, are individually adequate for a successful argument. The main idea of the paper is to view religious beliefs as the result of a logical-epistemological process and to consider various factors for the success of religious arguments. Therefore, instead of adhering to a specific criterion, one should regard the criterion as a "process." This concept brings our attention to several important points: Firstly, choosing a single criterion for all arguments or measuring and classifying different arguments based on a common criterion is difficult and challenging because there is no consensus on the goal, method, sources, and scope of natural theology. Secondly, it is better to focus on the overall advantages and strengths of the criteria as a whole. Thirdly, one should not perceive the criterion of a successful argument as one-dimensional. Rather, view the criterion as a "process" that allows each criterion to consider the merits of other criteria despite its own strengths. Fourthly, by considering the criterion as a process, the relationship and interaction of these three criteria become possible according to the type, stage, and context of the argument. Consequently, in natural theology, we can benefit from all three criteria together and not separately

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

ارسطو (1397). مجموعه آثار (کتاب فیزیک). مترجم: محمدحسن لطفی. تهران: طرح‌ نو.
افلاطون (1398). مجموعه آثار. مترجم: محمدحسن لطفی. تهران: خوارزمی.
Addinall, P. (1991). Philosophy and Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle (2018). Majmooe Asar (Ketab-e Physic). Translated by Mohammad Hasan Lotfi. Tehran: Tarh-e No Publication. [In Persian]
Bigalke, Ron J. (2011). Apologetics, Cumulative Case, In The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. edited by George Kurian. Wiley-Blackwell.
Braunsteiner-Berger, J. (2014). Swinburne's argument for the existence of God: a critical comment on conceptual issues. Religious Studies, 50, 359-378.
Collins, R. (2009). The teleological argument: an exploration of the fi ne-tuning of the universe, In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Craig, W. L. (2008a). Arguing Successfully about God: A Review Essay of Graham Oppy’s Arguing about Gods. Philosophia Christi, 10, 435-442.
------------------------- (2008b). Reasonable Faith. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Crossway.
------------------------- (2010). Apologetics Arguments. Reasonable Faith website. Available: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/apologetics-arguments.
Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Craig, W. L. & Moreland, J. P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. eds. Malden. MA: Blackwell.
Craig, W. L. & Sinclair, J. D. (2009). The Kalām Cosmological Argument, In Craig and Moreland (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Davis, C. F. (1999). The Evidential Force of Religious Experience. Oxford University Press.
Edwards, D. (2013). Catholic Perspectives on Natural Theology, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Ewart, P. (2013). The Physical Sciences and Natural Theology, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Frank, D. H. (2013). Jewish Perspectives on Natural Theology, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Frazier, J. (2013). Natural Theology in Eastern Religions, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Gelman, A. et al. (2013). Bayesian Data Analysis. CRC Press.
Knight, D. (2013). Chemical Sciences and Natural Theology, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Kwan, K-M. (2009). The argument from religious experience, In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Law, S. (2011). Evidence, miracles, and the existence of Jesus. Faith and Philosophy, 28, 129-151.
Lewis, C. S. (1947). Miracles: A Preliminary Study. London: G. Bles.
Linville, M. D. (2009). The moral argument, In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Maydole, R. E. (2009). The ontological argument, In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
McGrew, T. & DePoe, J. M. (2013). Natural Theology and the Uses of Argument. Philosophia Christi, 15, 299–309.
Mitchell, B. (1973). The Justification of Religious Belief. Palgrave Macmillan.
Morrison, R. G. (2013). Islamic Perspectives on Natural Theology, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Oppy, G. R. (2006). Arguing about Gods. New York: Cambridge University Press.
-------------- (2013). The Best Argument against God. Palgrave Pivot.
Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. London: R. Faulder.
Parsons, K. M. (2013). Perspectives on Natural Theology from Analytic Philosophy, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Pawl, T. (2012). The Five Ways, In B. Davies & E. Stump (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas. Oxford University Press.
Peters, T. (2013). Models of God, In Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities. Jeanine Diller & Asa Kasher (Eds.). Springer.
Plato (2019). Majmooe Asar. Translated by Mohammad Hassan Lotfi. Tehran: Tarh-e No Publication. [In Persian]
Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press.
Polkinghorne, J. (2013). Mathematics and Natural Theology, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Pruzan, P. (2016). Research methodology: The aims, practices and ethics of science. Springer Cham.
Reppert, V. (2009). The argument from reason, In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Ruse, M. (2013). Natural Theology: The Biological Sciences, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Swinburne, R. (2004a). Natural Theology, Its ‘Dwindling Probabilities’ and ‘Lack of Rapport’. Faith and Philosophy, 21, 533–535.
----------------- (2004b). The Existence of God. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
----------------- (2005). Faith and Reason. Clarendon Press.
Taliaferro, Ch. (2013). Philosophical Critique of Natural Theology, In The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Russell Re Manning, John Hedley Brooke, & Fraser Watts (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Philosophy of Religion
Volume 20, Issue 2
July 2023
Pages 103-117

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics