Search Results for: Paul Moser

The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil

Posted on November 25, 2017 by - atheism, Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil (book), chad meister, evil, featured books, paul k. moser, problem of evil, theodicy

In 2017, Cambridge University Press published The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil, edited by Chad Meister and Paul Moser, in the Cambridge Companions to Religion series. Chad Meister is Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Bethel College, Indiana, where he received the Professor of the Year award for teaching excellence. Paul K. Moser is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago and the past Editor of the American Philosophical Quarterly.

From the publisher’s description of The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil: 

For many centuries philosophers have been discussing the problem of evil – one of the greatest problems of intellectual history. There are many facets to the problem, and for students and scholars unfamiliar with the vast literature on the subject, grasping the main issues can be a daunting task. This Companion provides a stimulating introduction to the problem of evil. More than an introduction to the subject, it is a state-of-the-art contribution to the field which provides critical analyses of and creative insights on this longstanding problem. Fresh themes in the book include evil and the meaning of life, beauty and evil, evil and cosmic evolution, and anti-theodicy. Evil is discussed from the perspectives of the major monotheistic religions, agnosticism, and atheism. Written by leading scholars in clear and accessible prose, this book is an ideal companion for undergraduate and graduate students, teachers, and scholars across the disciplines.

The God Relationship: The Ethics for Inquiry about the Divine

Posted on July 1, 2017 by - epistemology, ethics, ethics for inquiry about God, featured books, paul k. moser, philosophy of religion, religious epistemology, The God Relationship (book), virtue ethics

In 2017, Cambridge University Press published The God Relationship: The Ethics for Inquiry about the Divine by Paul K. Moser. Paul K. Moser is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago.

From the publisher’s description of The God Relationship:

In this book, Paul Moser proposes a new approach to inquiry about God, including a new discipline of the ethics for inquiry about God. It is an ethics for human attitudes and relationships as well as actions in inquiry, and it includes human responsibility for seeking evidence that involves a moral priority for humans. Such ethics includes an ongoing test, a trial, for human receptivity to goodness, including morally good relationships, as a priority in human inquiry and life. Moser also defends an approach to the evidence for God that makes sense of the elusiveness and occasional absence of God in human experience. His book will be of interest to those interested in inquiry about God, with special relevance to scholars and advanced students in religious studies, philosophy, theology, and Biblical studies.

See also the “Christ-shaped Philosophy” project at the EPS website.

Conflict: Philosophy Trumps Christianity

Posted on September 1, 2016 by -

Learn more about the Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy (Zondervan, 2016) by going to the EPS book page.

I am a metaphysical naturalist: I hold a metaphysical naturalist worldview. I think that my metaphysical naturalist worldview is superior to competing Christian worldviews. In particular, I think that my metaphysical naturalist worldview commits me to less, but nowhere issues in weaker explanations, than competing Christian worldviews.

I am a philosophical neutralist: I think that one important part of philosophy is devoted to the neutral assessment of competing worldviews. In my opinion, the neutral assessment of competing worldviews goes by way of comparing the trade-offs made by those competing worldviews between minimising theoretical commitment and maximising explanatory breadth and depth. While there is no general algorithm for carrying out this assessment, there are some cases where we get a clear verdict. In particular, if the commitments of one worldview are a proper subset of the commitments of a second worldview, and yet there is nowhere that the second worldview has an explanatory advantage over the first, then the first worldview is superior to the second. According to me, neutral philosophical evaluation tells us that my metaphysical naturalist worldview is more theoretically virtuous than—and hence to be preferred to—competing Christian worldviews.

I don’t claim to be able to provide here—or anywhere else—a comprehensive assessment of the comparative theoretical virtues of my metaphysical naturalist worldview and competing Christian worldviews. What I give is a sketch that leaves almost all of the details undiscussed. Moreover, the conclusion that I reach is evidently contentious. Some will wish to reject my philosophical neutralism. (I think that those people go badly wrong; I cannot accept the implicit suggestion that philosophy ought everywhere be the mouthpiece of dogmatism.) Others will contest the details of my assessment. That seems fair to me: there are many controversial matters for judgment that feed into final verdicts about which worldviews are more theoretically virtuous than other competing worldviews.

It is worth noting that I do not say that there is conflict between Christianity and philosophy. It is perfectly possible to do Christian philosophy, i.e. to work on the philosophical development and improvement of Christian worldviews. My claims is just that, as I see it, the part of philosophy devoted to the neutral assessment of worldviews says that my metaphysical naturalist worldview is superior to competing Christian worldviews.
Among the other contributors to this discussion, it seems to me that only Tim McGrew (“Convergence”) has any sympathy for philosophical neutralism. In his view, the neutral assessment of competing worldviews is best handled in a Bayesian framework. Moreover, in his view, Bayesian deliberation delivers the conclusion that Christianity is to be preferred to metaphysical naturalism. While it is not entirely clear, I think that his use of derivations in the prosecution of his case shows that he thinks that metaphysical naturalism is logically inconsistent. In any case, I maintain that neutral philosophical assessment cannot be Bayesian because there are crippling theoretical problems for Bayesian analysis generated by—for example—the role played by prior probabilities in that framework.

Paul Moser (“Conformation”) rejects philosophical neutralism in favour of a reconceptualization of philosophy in which Christ is the central focus. While I’m happy to allow that philosophers can work on the development and improvement of Christian worldviews, I doubt that Moser’s proposed reconceptualization would benefit either philosophy or Christianity. On the one hand, there is an enormous amount in philosophy to which Christ is simply irrelevant. (For example, whether Christianity is true or false makes no difference whatsoever to the proper philosophical treatment of the two envelope paradox, or the liar paradox, or Zeno’s paradoxes of motion, or a thousand other philosophical topics.) On the other hand, Christianity benefits if there is a part of philosophy that provides a neutral standpoint from which it can be assessed: in particular, it is much more likely that improvements to Christian worldviews will emerge from criticism that is not committed to Christian worldview.

Scott Oliphant (“Covenant”) claims that philosophical neutralism is simply incoherent: in his opinion, all coherent worldviews presuppose the truth of Christianity. I think that it is obvious that my metaphysical neutralism does not presuppose Christianity; rather, in my view, it (a) entails that Christianity is necessarily false; and (b) trumps Christianity in a properly conducted assessment of theoretical virtue. I do not think that there is any coherent understanding of “presupposition” on which it is the case that worldviews have presuppositions. In particular, it seems to me that we should think of worldviews as maximal consistent theories. But, in any maximal consistent theory, for any proposition that p, exactly one of p and not-p belongs to that theory. While this way of thinking about worldviews is clearly an idealisation, it nonetheless forecloses the possibility that worldviews have presuppositions.

Obviously enough, there is lots of work to be done to build on and improve the position that I have begun to sketch.

First, there is much to be done to flesh out the account of worldviews and the details of the process to be followed in giving a neutral assessment of worldviews. In particular, it is worth noting that the account of worlds and their assessment involves a large amount of idealisation: there are many questions to ask about the relationship between worldview beliefs and the ideal structures that I have discussed.

Second, there is a huge amount of work required to make my metaphysical naturalist worldview and competing Christian worldviews more explicit (and there is also the potentially endless task of constructing better versions of these worldviews). I think that the task of setting out—and comparing—the commitments of worldviews is the most important but also the most difficult philosophical project.

Third, there is the enormous task of filling out all of the detail that feeds into the determination of the comparative theoretical virtue of my metaphysical naturalist worldview and competing Christian worldviews. (I have made a start on this work elsewhere; see, for example, my 2013 book The Best Argument against God (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan), and my 2015 paper “What Derivations Cannot Do” (Religious Studies 51, 3, 323-34). But most of the work remains to be done).

Special Invitation from Ratio Christi

Posted on January 22, 2016 by - apologetics, corey miller, missional professor (book), news, paul gould, paul moser, Ratio Christi

RatioChristi.org

All current EPS members are encouraged to collaborate with Ratio Christi, a student apologetics alliance, in light of this invitation from president Corey Miller:

Ratio Christi is eager to open the door to various EPS members to speak at our more than 150 university chapters via our Speakers Bureau, to consider being a faculty advisor or even starting a Ratio Christi chapter at your university (even if you’re a professor), and also to encourage those current and future professors at secular universities by providing resources for faculty ministry as winsome and productive but bold and shrewd “missional professors.” We wish to subvert the notion of an occupation in favor of a vocation such that professors do not see it as a job but as a calling and think creatively toward what that might look like for each individual. We provide resources and details including PROF Talks videos that are by professors for professors in secular universities that prove helpful in understanding what it might look like to be missional in that environment and academic discipline. We welcome those who wish to cooperate with us for the benefit of all in making more of these videos so that we have one in every academic discipline. We envision a movement of missional professors such that every student knows at least one of them and so that every academic discipline has a core group of Christian scholars working together to rebuild the plausibility structure of the Christian world and life view on secular campuses. 

For more information, see www.ratiochristi.com/prof.

See also recent books by Ratio Christi associates, including Corey Miller and Paul Gould’s book Is Faith in God Reasonable? Debates in Philosophy, Science, and Rhetoric (Routledge, 2014), which was based on a William Lane Craig Alex Rosenberg debate at Purdue; it includes entries by Victor Stenger, Paul Moser, Timothy McGrew, Robert Kaita, Michael Ruse, etc. For those interested in apologetics ministry and leadership, Mike Sherrards, Relational Apologetics: Defending the Faith with Holiness Respect and Truth (Kregel, 2015).

Finally, do not miss their upcoming symposium on February 5-7, 2016:

Love, Wisdom and (Christian) Philosophy

Posted on September 17, 2015 by -

Does the practice of Christian philosophy (or should it, at any rate) produce wisdom?

As a contribution to the Christ-shaped philosophy project, Ttis paper considers recent claims about analytic theology and philosophy and their connections to wisdom and love, specifically those made by Michael Rea, Paul Moser and Michael McFall. It argues that the relationship between Christian philosophy or theology and wisdom-rooted love is not well represented by either the Moser-McFall camp or by Rea and is closer to Aaron Preston’s account of historical philosophy.

The paper concludes by considering the role of irony in doing Christian theology and philosophy.

The full-text of this paper is available for FREE by clicking here.

Web Project: Philosophical Discussions on Marriage and Family Topics

Posted on May 14, 2015 by -

Instructions for Submitting a Paper Proposal

Purpose: For scholars interested in ethics, theology, and philosophy work on ‘marriage and family’ topics, we invite carefully-honed papers that advances discussion of any of the below areas of the Potential Paper Topics.

If you are interested, please contact our project coordinator and editor Michael Austin (info below). Michael is seeking to coordinate all potential contributors and their topics for this endeavor. When you pitch your possible contribution, please provide the following:

  • Your name, institution and contact info.
  • Title and description of your proposal (e.g., 100 words).
  • Reasons for how your contribution will help advance the purpose of this project.

We are looking for papers that a) argue for a perspective on a marriage and family topic, or b) casts a vision for more work to be done in a particular area or c) offers a literature review and assess what seems to be ‘under-developed’ work.

Length: 1,500 to 2,000 total words (minimum). You are welcome to work with the Project Editor on length issues.

Deadline: TBD by the project coordinator

Project Coordinator and Editor
Michael Austin
Eastern Kentucky University
Department of Philosophy
mike.austin@eku.edu

Priority will be given to those papers that offer a perspective on questions and problems that especially hone in on what have been ‘under-represented’ in this theme for Christian philosophers. Please seriously consider developing paper topics with the below examples in mind. We encourage papers that will be of interest not only to the ethics scholar but also to the epistemologist, metaphysician, theologian, etc.

Contributions

Find this Project interesting? See these other EPS Web Projects

Potential Paper Topics

Developed by Michael Austin (Eastern Kentucky University) & Joe Gorra (Veritas Life Center).

Much has been addressed by Christian philosophers on questions related to bioethics, reproductive technologies, and so on. But some under-represented ‘marriage and family’ topics include the following:

Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Issues in Marriage and Family Studies: If philosophy and theology are understood as ‘second-order’ disciplines, how might they contribute to the work and contributions of ‘first-order’ disciplines like sociology, psychology, economics, cultural studies and their accounts of marriage and family? How might ideas and images shaped by these disciplines enable and clarify the work done by philosophers and theologians? We strongly encourage contributions from Christian philosophers who have understanding of the ‘meta-‘ issues involved with philosophy’s contribution to interdisciplinary discussions. We also encourage Christian non-philosophers to propose papers that are attentive to philosophical issues and concepts that converge with their discipline and areas of expertise. Co-authored proposals from philosophy and non-philosophy scholars are welcomed.

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

Ethics of religious upbringing of children: how to share, model, and influence our children for Christ in ways that honor God and respect them as well. Defenses of the morality of a Christian upbringing in the face of challenges at a popular level (e.g. Dawkins and “child abuse” claims) as well as at the scholarly level. How might philosophical accounts of ‘harm’ and ‘interest’ (of children, parents, etc) contribute to clarifying what is often a legally vague idea of ‘Acting in the best interests of the child.’

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

Metaphysics of the Family: What is a family? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a family, on Christian theism? What biblical, theological, and philosophical data are relevant to this question? How important is genetics or biology to this definition? Or what value is there with respect to a biological connection of some sort between parent and child? Who is a father or a mother? How might a vocational account differ from strictly a biological account? How might we reflect upon ‘step-parenting,’ ‘foster-care parenting’ and ‘surrogate parenting’ in light of Christian theological accounts of adoption and hospitality of God? How might we think about the nature of parenting and family in light of the genetic modification of children and the technological possibilities of creating babies from three or more parents? And what implications do our answers to these questions have for the current cultural debates about same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting? From a political philosophy standpoint, what are strong, non-religious arguments for why a ‘secular state’ has an interest in protecting the family?

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

Metaphysical and Epistemological issues in Gender, Sexuality and Identity: What are necessary and sufficient conditions for defining ‘gender,’ ‘sexuality’ and ‘human identity’? On what basis are such distinctions drawn? In what sense and on what basis are these terms considered social constructions? ‘Self-identification’ of one’s experience as x, y, or z often populates studies in this area. Is this knowledge from a first-person perspective? Is it simply one’s construal? How might we understand the ‘authority’ of such claims relative to the authority of tradition, history, social institutions, etc.

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

Moral-Spiritual Formation of the Family: How does this occur, for both parents and children? What theological and philosophical resources can we bring to bear on this? How can parents be intentional about such formation for themselves and their children in the family? What does the Bible have to say that is relevant to such questions? And what do psychology, sociology, and other disciplines have to contribute to this? Is virtue formation and spiritual maturation in a family interconnected with being the roles of a mother and a father? What is the role of ecclesial communities in such matters of formation? Does the ‘Christian family’ exist primarily for the interests of the ‘household of faith’?

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

  • For ‘ethics and family’ treatments, see Julie Rubio, Family Ethics: Practices for Christians (Georgetown University Press, 2010); Michael W. Austin, Wise Stewards: Philosophical Foundations of Christian Parenting (Kregel Academic, 2009).
  • For some work on the vocation of the family, see Gene Edward Veith and Mary J. Moerbe, Family Vocation (Crossway, 2012).
  • For recent article examples on philosophy and spiritual formation integration, see from the (Fall 2014) Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care, Steve Porter, “A Call to Philosophy and Spiritual Formation” (248-257), and “Philosophy and Spiritual Formation: From Christian Faith to Christian Philosophy” (258-269); and also from JSFSC’s (Spring 2014), see Brian Brock, “Discipleship as Living with God, or Wayfinding and Scripture,” 22-34.

Non-Religious Arguments for Marriage and the Family: What are the opportunities and limitations for using ‘natural moral law arguments’ in public and pluralistic contexts? Are such arguments mostly useful for ‘consoling the faithful’? How are ‘secularists’ compelled by such arguments, if they are compelled at all? How might such arguments be retooled in light of changing plausibility structures in Western societies, which increasingly view Christian accounts of marriage and family to be contestable and not believable? How might sociological, psychological and economic reasons and evidences be more persuasive to most secularists than natural law arguments?

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

Moral Vision of Flourishing ‘Families’ in a Pluralistic Society: Culturally speaking, the experience of marriage and family is no longer a homogenous kind of experience in Western societies. Increasingly, we have ‘pluralist’ accounts recognized by law, legitimized by cultural pressures, and encouraged by various social institutions.

Drawing from Christian Social Thought, how might Christians envision a society that attends to our differences, even contradictions, regarding marriage and family flourishing? Is such a society possible? What conditions or values should shape how we are bound together? How might Christians think societally about such issues like ‘gay adoption,’ government assistance for unwed mothers, illegal immigration and deportation of parents, youth incarceration and single-parent homes, etc? What society should be built by Christian thought and leadership influence given the particularities of our cultural moment? We encourage constructive responses that seek to minister to each person made in the image of God, and seeks to uphold the social order.

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

‘Health,’ ‘Well-Being,’ and ‘Holiness’ of Marriage and Family: Innumerable scientific studies have been written about the health and happiness of individuals, their family and affects on society. ‘Health,’ though, is usually given a reductive account: a scientific or medical question about an organism. Similarly, ‘happiness studies’ usually assume a psychological account about someone’s mental outlook on life. Is there a thicker account of ‘health’ and ‘well-being’ that includes but is not reduced to the hard or soft sciences? Moreover, Christians have historically understood marriage and family as sacred or holy, set apart for the glory and purposes of God’s work in the world. Is there ‘health’ and ‘well-being’ entailed by that sacred, perhaps even ‘sacramental vision’ of marriage and family? How might we recapture a more holistic understanding of eudaimonia as a collective, relational phenomenon, in family, church and state.

Papers may wish to interact with this literature:

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!

Is Ramified Natural Theology at odds with Christ-Shaped Philosophy?

Posted on December 27, 2013 by - angus menuge, christ-shaped philosophy, natural law, natural theology, paul k. moser, philip stewart, ramified natural theology, robert larmer

The Winter 2013 (vol. 15. no. 2) issue of Philosophia Christi showcases a lively discussion on the character and stature of “Ramified Natural Theology” with a lead article by Richard Swinburne. Purchase this special issue today!

To explore some foretastes of the “Ramified Natural Theology” discussion in Philosophia Christi, please also consider these online contributions:

While ramified natural theology is an exciting and newly popular area of scholarly inquiry, it is also one which can very quickly get one into theological trouble. In this article I explore the necessary theological presuppositions for various views of ramified natural theology, offering two models for the possible theological place of the endeavor. Distinctions in the theological role of ramified natural theology allow one to find an appropriate place for it in apologetic discourse, either as in reach to believers or outreach to unbelievers. 

In this paper I argue that the ‘argument from miracle’ can best be understood as a powerful instance of what is coming to be known as ramified natural theology. Traditionally, it has been assumed that natural theology must eschew consideration of special revelation from God and consider only data that is available to unaided reason. This, however, is to ignore the fact that a purported revelation may include content that is empirically verifiable and thus within the purview of natural theology. Miracles are publicly observable events that cry out for an explanation. One need not come to such events already accepting the interpretation placed on them by religious believers – the Bible can be read as historical evidence rather than authoritative Scripture – but neither is one prohibited from considering whether that interpretation does indeed provide the best understanding of the events. This opens up the possibility that someone who initially does not accept theism might at once accept both the claim of God’s existence and the claim of God’s self-disclosure. 

Interested readers may also want to consider the following exchange between Angus Menuge and Paul Moser on “Ramified” and “Christ-shaped philosophy”:

Paul Moser has illuminated the spiritual terrain of Christian philosophy by revealing a stark contrast between the poles of spectator natural theology and Gethsemane epistemology. In this paper, I will first suggest that Moser’s work is most helpfully viewed not as a statement about the sociological habits of Christian philosophers, but as a prophetic call to self-examination and repentance by each and every Christian philosopher. That said, I argue that between spectator natural theology and Gethsemane epistemology there does seem room for an intermediary position: a chastened natural theology which provides a lived dialectic, a “ramified personalized natural theology.” I suggest this not as a critique but as a constructive proposal for rapprochement that attempts to find a worthy place for both natural theology and an evangelistic call to a personal encounter with the living Lord. 

Acknowledging the deficiency of traditional natural theology, Angus Menuge seeks an alternative in “ramified personalized natural theology.” I share his sense of the deficiency of traditional natural theology, but I raise some doubts about his proposed alternative, and suggest a more direct approach to the evidence for God. 

As part of the ongoing “Christ-Shaped Philosophy” discussion with Paul Moser, this note briefly responds to two main challenges that Paul Moser makes to my suggestion that Ramified Personalized Natural Theology may constitute a third way between standard natural theology and Gethsemane epistemology. First, Moser charges that ramified natural theology is likely incoherent because ramified theology will appeal to supernatural premises. My response appeals to a forthcoming essay by Hugh Gauch (Philosophia Christi 15:2), which provides a framework in which evidence counts across competing worldviews. Second, Moser claims that the “divine personalized experience” provided by the Holy Spirit makes natural theology redundant. I appropriate Charles Taliaferro’s idea of a “golden cord,” and suggest that the evidential threads of this cord, whether natural or supernatural, provide a means by which Christ may draw us to himself. 

This article is a rejoinder to Angus Menuge’s latest proposal of “a third way between standard natural theology and Gethsemane epistemology” for the Christ-Shaped Philosophy project. I contend that we do not have a stable third way, because any alternative to Gethsemane epistemology, like the arguments of traditional natural theology, neglects the distinctiveness of the evidence for the self-authenticating Christian God and does not offer a resilient defense of belief in this God. Advocates of the traditional arguments of natural theology fail to represent the ontological and evidential uniqueness of this God. 

 Explore the dozens of other contributions to the EPS Christ-Shaped Philosophy project.

Christ-Shaped Philosophy Project and Discussions on Natural Theology

Posted on October 3, 2013 by - aaron preston, angus menuge, kerygmatic philosophy, natural theology, paul k. moser, ramified natural theology, religious epistemology, richard swinburne

A little over
a year ago, we inaugurated the

“Christ-Shaped Philosophy” (CSP) project at the EPS website.

Now, with over

30 contributions, you can download all of these engaging papers that interact
with Paul Moser’s

“Christ-Shaped Philosophy: Wisdom and Spirit United.” Some recent contributions
include lively discussion on “natural theology” and Moser’s “Gethsemane Epistemology”:

Fall 2013 EPS President’s Update

Posted on August 5, 2013 by -

Greetings in the name of our risen Lord!   I would like to take this opportunity to let you know of some very exciting developments in the EPS.

Last year, the EPS began a fundraising campaign aimed at (among other things) increased international collaboration between societies of Christian philosophers.  Although these efforts are only in their infancy, I am happy to report that they have already borne fruit, and we will be helping four Christian philosophers from Europe to attend our annual meeting in Baltimore.   One of these is the chair of the Philosophy of Religion group of Tyndale Fellowship, Dr. Harry Bunting.  Dr. Bunting and Dr. Daniel Hill, secretary of the group and a lecturer at Liverpool University, have extensive contacts in European philosophy and provided a list of promising young Christian philosophers, from which two outstanding candidates, Joseph Diekemper and Jamie Collin, were selected.  It was my privilege to meet Harry, Daniel, Joseph and Jamie during this year’s Tyndale Fellowship meeting at Wolfson College, Cambridge, July 4th to 6th. How encouraging it was to talk to so many brilliant and promising young scholars, some of them students of such greats as Brian Leftow, E. J. Lowe and Richard Swinburne!  It is our mutual hope that this marks the beginning of an ongoing partnership between Tyndale Fellowship and the EPS.
Another European connection we hope to cultivate is with the European Leadership Forum.   Several members of the EPS have participated in the ELF, which has tracks in philosophy, apologetics and science.  An important contributor to the ELF is Dr. Ralph Vaags at the University of Agder, Norway, and we are pleased to announce that we will assist his attendance of the Baltimore conference.  These are early days, and I hope to strengthen the connection with ELF during a personal visit next year.
Of course, we would love to do even more, and it is our hope that next year will see even more international collaboration.   As our culture shows increasing signs of a post-Christian orientation focused on secularism and alternative religions, it is vital that evangelical Christian philosophers take a leadership role in supporting each other’s work for Christ throughout the globe.  In some contexts, the illusion has developed that to be a Christian philosopher is either a curiosity or a danger. Concerted, collaborative efforts and mutual encouragement are therefore vital to show that, on the contrary, Christian philosophy is a growing area of vibrant, rigorous, well-informed inquiry that coherently addresses fundamental questions about what is real, how we know, and how we are called to live.
Some evidence of this is found in the consistently high quality of articles found in journals of Christian philosophy, including Faith and Philosophy and our own Philosophia Christi.  Regarding the latter, I was very pleased with the most recent special issue on neuroscience and the soul, guest edited by Chad Meister and Charles Taliaferro, which featured excellent articles by household names in the international, Christian philosophy community, and some very stimulating essays pushing us to reconsider standard assumptions and pursue promising new models of the mind-brain connection.  Charles and I also believe you will like the forthcoming Winter 2013 special issue on ramified natural theology, which we hope will spur keen minds into whole new avenues of research.   In tandem with Paul Moser’s emphasis on existential encounter with the claims of Christ, ramified natural theology focuses our argumentation on the case for Christian truth.

The EPS website has also been flourishing.   Paul Moser’s arresting charge to reform the guild of Christian philosophers has provoked a fascinating series of interchanges on the proper focus of Christian philosophy, the Christ-shaped philosophy project.   J. P. Moreland describes the late, great Dallas Willard as one of Christian philosophy’s five-star generals, and though saddened by the loss I am certain Dallas would approve of the constructive tributes and essays that followed.   New books also abound and the website is a great place to find out about new and forthcoming works.   In addition to our annual meeting, the EPS has several regional meetings, and philosophy students are especially encouraged to take advantage of these to present papers and network with other philosophers.

Let me close by encouraging all of you to pray for the work of the EPS.  We would love to see as many of you as possible at our annual national meeting in Baltimore, November 19-21.   It is a great delight to have another “five star general” (or field marshal!) Richard Swinburne, as our plenary speaker, and I know from the program committee that the quality of submitted papers has never been so high or so numerous.   I very much look forward to seeing many of you at our annual EPS reception during the conference, and if any of you have ideas about what EPS can do better, do not hesitate to relay them to me.
Blessings on all of your work for Christ’s kingdom, and hope to see you in November!
Angus Menuge, Ph.D.

EPS President