This paper offers a defense of Paul Moser’s recent work on Christian philosophy while also seeking to better understand it.
This involves integrating a previous concept of Moser’s with his “Christ-Shaped Philosophy” and then briefly furthering some concerns of Graham Oppy and William Hasker.
Finally, the paper explores what Christian philosophy might look like in the classroom.
The full-text of this contribution is available for FREE by clicking here.
In this paper, Paul Moser replies to specific claims about ambiguity raised by Graham Oppy.
He also suggests that Christ-Shaped Philosophy does not settle for broad goals that are identical with the goals of the natural sciences, even if it is broadly continuous with reliable science. If it did settle thus, it would offer nothing distinctive. Instead, it offers a philosophical approach that goes beyond mere truth-seeking and understanding to redemption by God in Christ. Anything short of this will fail to be Christ-Shaped Philosophy. It thereby will fail to incorporate the distinctive kind of wisdom or philosophy recommended by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:6-7. “Christ-Shaped Philosophy” aims precisely to restore attention to that kind of philosophy.
The full-text of this contribution is available for FREE by clicking here.
Come join the Center for Christian Thought at Biola University and plenary speakers Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Paul Moser, in order discuss the nature and value of Christian scholarship.
May 18-19, 2012
Biola University, Calvary Chapel
Registration for the May Conference begins April 1st at cct.biola.edu
Questions like the following will be addressed:
What is Christian Scholarship? Why is it important? What are its proper aims and methods? What challenges does it face? Whom does it serve and how? How does Christian scholarship contribute to a life of obedience to Jesus’ love commands? Need it so contribute? Should Christian scholarship aim to influence culture? If so, how?
All of the Center’s research fellows will present on the research they’ve been doing this semester and provide insights that have come from their collaboration with one another on this theme.
Come prepared to listen to some interesting papers on Christian scholarship from a variety of perspectives and participate in some engaging Q&A.
Engaging Paul Moser’s Christ-Shaped Philosophy (CSP), this paper argues that listening is a philosophical virtue that is an essential characteristic of the Christ-shaped philosopher by meeting the Divine Love Commands (DLC).
The paper first highlights the pertinent parts of Moser’s project that relate to the thesis of the paper – specifically that a defining feature of CSP is characterized by one’s Gethsemane union with Christ. The paper then follows with a discussion on the central role that listening plays in Scripture regarding the life of a child of God, providing a basis upon which to understand listening as meeting the first DLC.
Drawing upon the works of thinkers such as Paul Moser, Dru Johnson, and Carol Harrison, among other, the paper engages the role of listening in one’s engagement with others, thus meeting the second DLC.
The paper concludes by engaging the art of listening as a philosophical virtue, employing Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung’s definition of ‘virtue’ and Suzanne Rice’s exploration of listening as a Christ-shaped philosophical virtue.
The full-text of this paper is available for FREE by clicking here.
Members of the Evangelical Philosophical Society mourn the loss of friend, colleague, and teacher, Keith E. Yandell (b. 1938), who passed away on April 28th.
Since the 1960s, Keith’s dozens of articles and books have addressed multiple areas of philosophy, including issues in philosophy of religion, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical anthropology, and Christian engagement with religious diversity and eastern religions. According to an announcement of his passing made by the Society of Christian Philosophers, Keith’s wife, Sharon, said that Keith “enjoyed most of all teaching and mentoring the many students he had in a 45 year career at UW-Madison and as an affiliate professor for several years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.” Additional remembrances are posted at Keith’s Facebook page. See also reflections from Thomas McCall and Harold Netland.
Within Philosophia Christi, the peer-reviewed journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Keith’s papers were published on issues of metaphysics and philosophical theology, an appraisal of Plantinga’s religious epistemology, Hasker’s “emergent dualism,” an assessment of new interpretations of Kant’s philosophy of religion, and critiques of pluralist accounts of religions and religious diversity.
For example, in 1999, and in the inaugural issue of Philosophia Christi, Keith wrote on “Ontological Arguments, Metaphysical Identity, and the Trinity.” In this article, Keith seeks “to explore some accounts of the necessary and sufficient conditions of metaphysical identity” and their implications for “Anselmian and non-Anselmian views of the Christianity trinity” in order to argue that “if one is a Christian trinitarian theist, then – given certain plausible claims – one should reject the view that God has logically necessary existence” (83). His paper, as in much of his work, toggled between issues of metaphysics and philosophy of religion.
In 2000 (vol. 2, no. 2), Keith participated in a book symposium on William Hasker’s The Emergent Self, which also included contributions from Nancey Murphy, Stewart Goetz, and a reply from Hasker. Keith’s article – “Mind-Fields and the Siren Song of Reason” – attends to “powers attributed to matter by emergent dualism amount to this: when suitably configured, it generates a field of consciousness that is able to function teleologically and to exercise libertarian free will, and the field of consciousness in turn modifies and directs the functioning of the physical brain.” The article goes on to illuminate the ‘pretty severe tension’ “between the apparently mechanistic character of the physical basis of mind and the irreducibly teleological nature of the mind itself,” such that “the siren song of Cartesian dualism once again echoes in our ears” (183).
In the following year (vol. 3, no. 2), Philosophia Christi featured a book symposium on Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief, which included a paper from Keith – “Is Contemporary Naturalism Self-Referentially Irrational?” and also contributions from Douglas Geivett and Greg Jesson, Richard Fumerton, Paul Moser, and a reply from Plantinga. Keith’s paper offers a multi-point reflection on Plantinga’s argument, leaving the reader to ponder ‘how bad’ is the contemporary naturalist’s argument if Plantinga’s argument is correct?; it “depends not only on [Plantinga’s argument] being valid and having true premises, but on what exactly it does to a view to show that it supports the conclusions that one cannot rationally accept it.” Keith wonders, “Is this like a car having a little scratch on its fender, or like the motor’s parts having been fused by heat?” (356).
In 2007, Keith’s paper, “Who is the True Kant?,” was part of a book symposium on Kant and the New Philosophy of Religion (vol. 9, no. 1); the symposium was guest edited by Chris Firestone and with additional contributions from John Hare, Stephen Palmquist, Nathan Jacobs, Firestone and Jacobs, and Christophe Chalamet. Keith’s article renders a more cautious, as opposed to an optimistic view of the ‘new wave’ interpretations of Kant. “I take Kant, among other strengths, to be incapable of making uninteresting mistakes, which – if you think about it – is a very high compliment” (81).
Keith returned to issues of metaphysics and philosophical theology in a 2009 article (vol. 11, no. 2) co-authored with Thomas McCall, titled, “On Trinitarian Subordinationism.” In that paper, McCall and Yandell analyze “the claim that the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father” in order to argue “that there are no good reasons to hold such a view but that there are strong reasons to reject it” since such arguments “often rest upon fundamental misunderstandings of the theological issues at stake, their arguments from Scripture bring important—but flawed—metaphysical assumptions into the exegesis of biblical texts, and their own proposal is either hopelessly mired in contradiction or entails the direct denial of the full divinity of the Son” (339).
Additionally, in that same 2009 issue of the journal, Keith contributed to a symposium guest edited by Chad Meister and that focused on philosophical and theological issues of “Religious Diversity,” which also included papers from Paul Moser and Paul Knitter. Keith’s paper – “Religious Pluralism: Reductionist, Exclusivist, and Intolerant?” – addresses the idea that religions differ in significant ways and also critiqued the idea that “Religious Pluralism is often taken to define the only unbiased, rational, and acceptable approach to the diversity of religions.” Keith goes on to say that “the Pluralist route is anything but unbiased or rational” and that rather than “being the only acceptable approach, it should be flatly rejected” (275).
Finally, in 2011 (vol. 13, no. 2), Yandell contributed to one more Philosophia Christi symposium, and this time centered on “God and Abstract Objects,” guest edited by Paul Gould, with additional contributions from Richard Davis and William Lane Craig. Keith’s article – “God and Propositions” – focuses the discussion this way: “Arguments that necessary existence is a perfection, and God has all perfections, assume that Necessitarian Theism is true, and hence consistent. Thus they do not provide reason to believe that Necessitarian Theism is true. Nonnecessitarian (‘plain’) theism is on a philosophical par with Necessitarian Theism and can accommodate abstract objects all the while avoiding theological and philosophical refutation” (275).
The above is but a microcosm of Keith Yandell’s faithful work. Keith’s mind, wit, prose, and rigor will surely be missed. Important areas of philosophy – e.g., issues in philosophy of religion – are better because of his leadership.
Learn more about Philosophia Christi, or subscribe today for as low as $25/yr (EPS membership includes a print subscription to the journal).
At the
2019 Annual EPS Conference in San Diego, California,
J.P.
Moreland,
Talbot School
of Theology’s Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, will deliver this year’s
plenary address.
Title: “How Christian Philosophers can serve Systematic Theologians and Biblical
Scholars”
Synopsis: The paper will begin by laying out two reasons why much of contemporary
theology and scriptural studies are anemic in their impact for Christ: these disciplines
are often done in isolation from the broader cultural issues facing the church and
their results are not presented as knowledge of reality. The paper argues that an
important solution to this problem is for theological and scriptural scholars to
appropriate the findings of Christian philosophy and do integrative work with Christian
philosophers in their intellectual projects. The paper goes on to state and illustrate
four ways that Christian philosophy and philosophers can serve their colleagues
in theology and scriptural studies.
Time and Location: Thursday, November 21st, 2:00-2:50 pm; Seaport ABCDE,
Second Floor,
Manchester Grand Hyatt.
If you or a colleague wish to attend and have not yet registered,
onsite registration will be available.
J.P. will also be the final plenary speaker for the annual
EPS Apologetics conference (Saturday, November 23rd, at
Maranatha Chapel, San Diego). J.P. will be speaking on “Science and Secularism”
(see also his 2018 book,
Scientism and Secularism). For the last 18 years, the EPS has
helped bring apologetics and worldview training to local churches in a variety of
locations around the U.S., drawing upon seasoned expertise from EPS members working
in apologetics, philosophy, theology, and ethics.
In light of commemorating the 20th Anniversary of
Philosophia Christi, J.P. wrote the following paper in the
Summer 2019 issue of
Philosophia Christi (subscribe
now):
“My Retrospective and Prospective Musings on the Evangelical Philosophical Society”,
he writes:
This article reflects on three issues: (1) the past twenty years of the Evangelical
Philosophical Society (EPS), (2) ideas for EPS’s future, and (3) some words
of advice to my younger EPS colleagues. Regarding (1), I identify four values
that were central to the rebirth of the EPS and that have guided us for twenty
years. Regarding (2), I issue a warning and a challenge. Regarding (3), I provide
three words of advice for keeping us on course.
For other EPS content at the intersection of philosophy, theology and biblical studies,
see these free web contributions:
Support the EPS to expand its reach, support its members, and be a credible
presence of Christ-shaped philosophical interests in the academy and into the wider
culture!
The Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS) is pleased to introduce a unique and ongoing Philosophy of Theological Anthropology project! Your contributions, readership, exploration and support are most welcomed. For more on this theme and Christian contributions to philosophy, become a subscriber – for as low as $25 per year! – to Philosophia Christi, the peer-reviewed journal of the EPS [all EPS members receive Philosophia Christi as part of their membership].
Inaugurated in 2018, The Philosophy of Theological Anthropology is an EPS web project devoted to the foundations and meta-themes of theological anthropology. Contributors seek to highlight a variety of new topics, which are at present underexplored, and fresh philosophical perspectives of older topics. This is an opportunity for philosophers and constructive theologians to explore foundational and innovative themes within theological anthropology from a philosophical perspective.
Topics of interest in this web series include areas of epistemology, metaphysics, Christology, and traditioned anthropology. We are interested in approaches that reconceive in fresh new ways the conditions and foundations for thinking about theological anthropology. This amounts to critical interrogations of commonly held assumptions in the contemporary theological literature on anthropology. We invite contributions that are extensions of previously published works as well as unique speculative pieces.
Areas of Web Project
The present issue will contain topics on anthropology, philosophy of mind, imago Dei [broadly conceived], with the aim toward advancing the philosophical foundations and implications of a theistic anthropology.
Options for contributing: reflection essays, critical responses, book reviews, exploratory essays, dialectical pieces, methodological hybrids (biblical studies to philosophy), how to communicate to the public.
Length: Shorter (e.g., 1500-2000 words) and longer papers (e.g., 6,000 words) are permitted. You are welcome to work with the Project Editors on length issues.
Suggested topics: evolution and theological anthropology, imago Dei, the metaphysics of gender and sexuality, method, Christological anthropology, religious epistemology, and human ontology.
Main Project Categories:
Submit a Proposal: Email a topic, thesis and description of the proposed paper (250 words max) to Project Editors Joshua Farris and Nathan Jacobs [see below]. They will help guide your proposal toward being a contribution of this web project.
Past Editorial Assistant: Dave Strobolakos.
Web Project Overseer: Joseph E. Gorra, Consulting Editor, Philosophia Christi.
Please consider becoming a regular annual or monthly financial partner with the Evangelical Philosophical Society in order to expand its reach, support its members, and be a credible presence of Christ-shaped philosophical interests in the academy and into the wider culture!
We recently interviewed Steve Porter about his own journey, about philosophical contributions to Christian spiritual formation literature, and the tenth anniversary of the Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care (JSFSC). Steve’s role [among other things] includes teaching theology and philosophy for Talbot School of Theology’s Institute for Spiritual Formation and Rosemead School of Psychology. He is also the Managing Editor of the JSFSC. Currently, he is also a scholar-in-residence for Biola’s Center for Christian Thought.
Very early in my life (around age seven) I began to have rather undeniable (even if rare) experiences of God’s presence. I had never heard of the possibility of such experiences in my church experience. While I had heard the stories of Moses’ burning bush and Elijah’s still small voice, I didn’t know those were the sorts of ways God still operated with his people. So within a Christian tradition that did not emphasize an experiential relationship with God, I came to know otherwise. I also knew that such experiences of God’s presence and love were transformational–mainly at an attitudinal level (e.g., joy). In junior high I came into contact with a pastor that helped me understand more fully what I was experiencing. But I did not encounter anyone who had a theory of how to follow Jesus in such a way that transformation was the norm. I pretty much thought you just went from experience to experience hoping for another fresh outpouring of the Spirit and that you tried really hard not to sin in the meantime.
Who helped guide you?
J. P. Moreland was the first one, I think, that began to put some theory around the spiritual life. He taught and lived it passionately, which was so helpful for me. And he kept talking about Dallas Willard, whom I really didn’t appreciate at first. I thought Spirit of the Disciplines smacked of legalism. I just wasn’t ready for it when I first read it at about twenty-years old. But eventually myself and a few other folks in graduate school got together and started doing some reading. Henri Nouwen, Richard Foster, Thomas Kelly, M. Robert Mulholland, EugenePeterson, and eventually back to Willard. Then, we thought we should hear more from some of these people so we went on to plan three spiritual formation conferences at Biola University in the mid-1990s which featured folks like Willard, Brennan Manning, James Houston, Glandion Carney, Emilie Griffin, LarryCrabb, and others. Rubbing shoulders with these folks really enlivened me to the realistic possibility of spiritual formation in Christ. And doing all of this in community with these friends was essential.
What were you coming to notice about you and the Spirit?
On my own I don’t think I would have noticed as clearly what the Spirit of God was up to. I could see him at work in the others in ways that I was blind to myself. I should also say that somewhere along the way I was exposed to “pop” psychology and good Christian psychotherapy. Being in therapy has been a discipline for me on and off for close to thirty years. While I am sure God would have his way with me without therapy, having seen God use it so powerfully in my life I can’t imagine my journey without it.
And you would eventually go study under Dallas Willard.
Yes, I did my Ph.D. at USC under Dallas’ supervision. Again, it’s hard to even imagine how I could have gotten along without my times with Dallas. He embodied the kingdom reality of God in a powerful way that I had never seen before or since. I have a book chapter entitled “The Evidential Force of Dallas Willard.” He was a force to be reckoned with because Dallas, along with Paul, was “struggling with all [Christ’s] energy that he powerfully works within me” (Col 1:29).
Right, there has often been a perceived tension between “inner” and “outer” in Christian spirituality. Jesus was fairly insistent on the need to change the inner–cleaning the inside of the cup (Mt 23), the healthy tree produces healthy fruit (Mt 7), “For from within, out of people’s hearts…” (Mk 7), etc. I think the importance is to see that the inner life is inherently connected with the entire person and the whole of a person’s life. Perhaps we could say that the whole of life includes the inner as the pivotal dimension of the person. But it is this sort of discussion that is ripe for scholarly investigation and the Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care seeks to host this sort of discussion. I will say that over our ten years of publishing we have had many articles and essays that focus on those dimensions of persons that are often neglected in contemporary evangelical spirituality. For instance, we did a special issue on the theme “Spirituality and Mission” in Spring 2013 and we had another curated discussion on the theme of “Embodied Spirituality” in Spring 2014. Articles from those issues are some of our most sought after publications.
The Journal recently celebrated its ten-year anniversary with the release of the Spring and Fall 2017 issue. What stands out to you about the journal’s contribution thus far?
When I look at the twenty issues we have published over the last ten years, I think of the many e-mails we’ve received or in-person conversations expressing gratitude for this or that article. And then I think that there is a good chance the article in question wouldn’t exist apart from the existence of the Journal. There simply are not many places to publish scholarly work on Christian spirituality, let alone an evangelical approach to Christian spirituality. Over the summer I was at a small town church where one of the elders was referencing the Journal and the help that one of the articles had been for their congregation. You just don’t hear that kind of thing very often–a scholarly journal article helpful to a small town congregation?! That’s amazing. So, one thing we’ve done well, I think, is to help bridge the academy and the church.
Since its inception, the Journal has intentionally sought to foster an interdisciplinary conversation on issues of Christian spirituality. Why does that interdisciplinary orientation matter for the Journal and the ‘state of the literature’?One way to get at this is to realize that sanctification is a lived doctrine. Not all doctrines are lived. We don’t live the incarnation (Jesus did), we don’t live eschatology (at least not yet), we don’t live God’s omniscience (we live in light of it). But we actually live out our theology of sanctification–what I believe about sanctification makes a difference for what I do when I wake up and how I go through my day (at least it should). So that makes the study of sanctification–or Christian spirituality–an interdisciplinary affair. Part of what other disciplines get at is the existential nature of the spiritual life. Sociology investigates what spiritual life looks like in particular groups and settings. Psychology investigates the psychological dynamics of life in the Spirit. History investigates the ways of the Spirit as it has been exhibited across the lifespan of the church. Philosophy investigates the evidential basis for these sorts of claims as well as the metaphysical, epistemological, and moral matters that lie at the foundations of spiritual formation. These and other disciplines come into play to help get at the particularities of the Jesus way of life.
Well, first, I think there are some fairly developed philosophically-oriented views of Christian spirituality already in existence that deserve careful attention. Of course, Dallas Willard’s works have all sorts of places of entry into the discussion for philosophers. Paul Moser’s recent works on religious epistemology [see also “Christ-shaped philosophy” project] are a gold-mine for further philosophical research as are James K. A. Smith’s books. Lesser known are philosophers like Thomas R. Kelly and Douglas V. Steere who developed philosophically rich accounts of Quaker spirituality. When you look at philosophers such as these the meta-questions that repeatedly arise have to do with the metaphysics of spiritual reality, the nature of virtue formation, and overall accounts of soteriology that make sense of the place of spiritual formation in the Christian life.
Some examples of these questions?
For instance, what is the nature of spiritual reality and what are the conditions under which persons can come into contact with spiritual reality?; what is the best way to conceptualize the role of spiritual life in our overall understanding of the human person?; how is it that life in the Spirit brings about changes in human psychology that give rise to virtues?; what is the role of the body, mind, will, emotions, etc. in Christian virtue formation?; what sort of soteriology best explains and accounts for Christian formation in the way of Jesus?; etc. Speaking of Jesus, I should say that Jesus’ teachings are the best place for philosophers to start when it comes to understanding spirituality. What Willard did so well was take a teaching of Jesus and really get to the bottom of it in terms of the way of life in the kingdom he prescribed.
O.k., here is a snapshot of some Christian philosophers who have contributed to the journal. Mike Austin (Eastern Kentucky University) wrote an article on sports as a type of spiritual exercise. J.P. Moreland (Talbot) has written on Willard’s ontology of the person and its implications for formation. Dan Speak (Loyola Marymount University) responded to an article written by Willard on the will and the flesh. Gregg Ten Elshof (Biola University) addressed Willard’s interpretation of the Beatitudes. Paul Moser (Loyola University Chicago) wrote an essay on philosophical reflection and formation. And Brandon Rickabaugh (Baylor University) addressed knowledge of God as a type of knowledge by acquaintance. These and other contributions to the journal by philosophers are some of our best publications.
I think any question of Christian spirituality can benefit from a philosophical approach. For instance, marshaling evidence for various claims of Christian formation is urgently needed. I know folks who try to argue for the importance of spiritual direction in their local churches and they just get eaten alive because they do not have well-formed biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments. Alternatively, looking carefully at the evidential base for spiritual principles and practices (e.g., certain forms of contemplative prayer) can bring about much-needed qualifications as well as an appropriate intellectual humility to proponents of these practices. Whether it’s a stereotype or not, it does seem that many persons involved in spiritual formation are driven by their own experience and therefore they often appeal to their own and others’ experience. But that only goes so far and it never goes far enough. Philosophers, for better and for worse, bring a more objective, logical mind to these questions. While that can lead to an unhealthy critical attitude, it can also lead to a more grounded and nuanced understanding of Christian spirituality.
Is there one common area that merits greater philosophical attention?
If I were to pick one, it would be the nature of the Divine-human relationship. For instance, a philosophical conceptualization of how human minds interact with the Divine mind is sorely needed, including the criteria whereby one can know that God is influencing one’s thoughts (see 1 Cor 2–3). Jesus seemed keenly aware of the presence and will of his Father (e.g., see John 8:29). If we are going to imitate Jesus we need to imitate the way of life he led with his Father by the Spirit. But, unfortunately, many folks either don’t think about the nature of God’s presence at all or, what might be worse, they think of it operating like magic or in overly romantic categories (i.e., a felt sense of God’s love). The other prevalent view is to reduce God’s presence to beliefs one has about God. There is simply a conceptual desert for many when it comes to thinking about life in interactive relationship with God. Philosophers could really help fill in this absence with well-formed biblical and theological concepts.
This special issue [deadline for CFP is February 28th!] is particularly focused on what can be done and has been done regarding spiritual formation in educational settings–particularly the church and university. Of course, there has been a lot of work in virtue epistemology and virtue ethics on the question of whether virtue can be taught. This goes all the way back to Plato’s Meno but more recently Robert Adam’s A Theory of Virtue ends with a chapter on whether virtue can be taught. Linda Zagzebski’s recent Exemplarist Moral Theory and Nancy Snow’s work is relevant here as well. All of this to say, this special issue is crying out for some submissions on issues related to the teaching of virtue. What role does direct instruction on the virtues have in virtue formation and formation by the Spirit? What role does exposure to exemplars have? How about spiritual practices? There is also a lot of empirical, psychological work on virtue acquisition that is relevant here and much of that work has been profitably discussed by philosophers (see, e.g., Christian Miller’s recentbooks). It would be wonderful to have some submissions engaging this material.
Great question! First, I think we need to make sure we understand Willard’s own views. I often find that my first take on what Willard is saying is completely wrong. My second take is closer to what he actually held, but it really takes three or four approaches to Willard to get at the nuanced way he addresses these issues. Even still, I sometimes worry whether I am understanding him correctly. So that is a project in and of itself. What actually is Willard’s view of this or that aspect of spiritual formation? After that is clear, we need folks to develop some of Dallas’ insights more fully. Critical evaluation and emendation is needed as is developing the arguments for some of Dallas’ views more fully than he did. Then there is the work of implications.
This all has to start with Willard’s realist epistemology and that includes his understanding of concepts. Philosophia Christi published an article in vol. 1, no. 2 in which Dallas offers his clearest presentation of these issues. The first and last couple of chapters of Knowing Christ Today apply this realism to his understanding of faith and knowledge of God/Christ. All of that is great fodder for further philosophical reflection. Then one should turn to Willard’s understanding of the nature of God and God’s kingdom, Jesus as providing access to and a way of life within God’s kingdom, and finally how it is that intentional engagement with such a way of life is transformational. I think all of this is ripe for further philosophical analysis. Willard is one of those philosophers the investigation of whom brings about great rewards. Also, sometime in this current year Willard’s posthumous book, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, will be published by Routledge. This book is a history of 20th century ethics with an eye to the failure of moral theory to ground moral knowledge and a brief positive case for the possibility of moral knowledge. All of this is foundational to Willard’s work in spiritual formation as it puts forward views that provide the basis for his sort of optimism and confidence regarding knowledge of spiritual life.
From the publisher’s description of Evil:
Evil: A Guide for the Perplexed is a lively examination of the philosophical and theological problems raised by the existence of widespread evil. It explores classic debates around this problem and also engages with more recent ones, from new challenges posed by scientific advances in evolutionary theory, neuroscience, and cosmology, to concerns of climate change and environmental degradation, to questions raised by increasing religious and secular violence. This second edition is fully revised and updated and contains three new chapters covering topics such as Jewish, Christian, and Islamic responses to evil and skeptical theism. The result is an even-handed guide to both traditional and contemporary issues raised by the reality and ubiquity of evil.
To stay current with the EPS via email, subscribe here.
© 2024 Evangelical Philosophical Society. All Rights Reserved.
