Koterski Joseph W. - Theism and atheism : opposing arguments in philosophy

Preface xv

Editor's Note: Theism xvii

Editor's Note: Atheism xix

Contributors xxi

TOPIC 1: DEFINITION

Definition: Theism 1
David B. Twetten, Associate Professor, Marquette University
Brian Carl, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Dominican House of Studies
Mark Johnson, Associate Professor, Marquette University
Francisco Romero Carrasquillo, Associate Professor, Universidad Panamericana

This chapter discusses how theism and atheism are best defined, primarily as a function of what God or god means. It sets out the range of meanings that god and God can have in different argumentative contexts, suggesting that proofs for God's existence need not immediately conclude to the existence of a being with personal or omni-attributes. It also explores the notions of analogy and apophaticism, given that these themes condition the way many theists understand the affirmation that God exists. The chapter thereby offers principles that should govern the proper use of words in theism versus atheism debates.

Definition: Atheism 19
Robert Nola, Emeritus Professor, The University of Auckland

This chapter discusses atheism, theism, and agnosticism and the nature of some of the definitions of these doctrines. Rather than address arguments for or against god (or God), the chapter also considers definitions that can clarify what these doctrines mean. It also discusses concepts of god as spelled out in various kinds of definition.

TOPIC 2: METHOD

Method: Theism 35
Robert Audi, Professor, University of Notre Dame

This chapter presents many of the main issues that must be understood to arrive at an appropriate method for appraising the rationality of theistic worldviews. It outlines several conceptions of theism; it explores the kinds of evidences possible for it and compares those with the kinds appropriate to confirming scientific theories; and it specifies a range of positive attitudes, such as faith and hope, that theists may have regarding the existence of God. The chapter considers both the kind and degree of rationality of theistic attitudes and the need for rationality in actions based on those attitudes. Both theistic attitudes and certain actions based on them are shown to be important, and their rationality is also shown to be both a highly complex matter and a status that is not ruled out on methodological grounds.

Method: Atheism 49
Graham Wood, Lecturer, University of Tasmania

Suppose that you are given two worldviews, one championed by a theist and one championed by an atheist. What method or methods should be used in attempts to assess the comparative merits of these worldviews? What kinds of considerations should feed into these methods? This chapter begins with a discussion of themes central to answering these two questions, including specifying two worldviews to allow for meaningful comparison. Then a series of topics is addressed for the benefit of a person, identified as the undecided person, who does not yet endorse either worldview, in order to establish if there are reasons to prefer the atheistic worldview presented here.

TOPIC 3: LOGIC

Logic: Theism 65
Mashhad Al-Allaf, American University of Ras Al Khaimah