In Towards a World Theology, Cantwell Smith offers a new approach to the issue of conflicting belief claims in the world religions. He argues that most approaches err in considering religion in terms of belief rather than faith. He proposes a world theology of faith that requires persons to move beyond their particular traditions in order to interpret comprehensively the religious faith of human kind. I present Cantwell Smith’s central thesis, analyzing it in term of the relation between faith and belief. I argue that faith and belief are distinguishable but not separable and that to do what Cantwell Smith proposes would require an interpretive scheme or metaphysical theory that can be evaluated in accordance with its ability to make sense of the experience of humankind.

Alvin Plantinga’s account of proper basicality, which suggests a “broad foundationalism,” raises nagging questions. A first such question is how a disposition to accept certain beliefs as properly basic could contribute to their being so. A second is whether broadfoundationalists can really make headway in identifying the criteria of proper basicality by using, as Plantinga suggests, an inductive approach. A third is whether members of the set of statements that give criteria for proper basicality are (a) themselves properly basic and (b) necessary or only contingent truths. I argue that each of these questions has a satisfactory answer, although at Ieast one inductive approach to detennining proper basicality fails.

The atheism of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud can be called the atheism of suspicion in contrast to evidential atheism. For while the latter focuses on the truth of religious beliefs, the former inquires into their function. It asks, in other words, what motives lead to belief and what practices are compatible with and authorised by religious beliefs. The primary response of Christian philosophers should not be to refute these analyses, since they are all too often true and, moreover, very much of the same sort as found in the religion critique of Jesus and the prophets. Rather, our primary response should be to show the Christian community, including ourselves, how even the truth can become an instrument of self-interest. In this way the atheism of suspicion can provide helpful conceptual tools for personal and corporate self-examination.

Traditional philosophical uneasiness with imagining activity is documented. The reason adduced for the ontological homelessness of imagination is the inability of most philosophers to recognize the irreducible nature and function of imaginativity.Imagining is then distinguished from sense-perceiving. imaging. and conceptual activity. Imagining, it is proposed, is the reality of making-believe; and such human, as-if functioning can both (I) characterize human deeds as imaginative acts. and (2) be a latent or active functional moment within other kinds of human acts.Why God. creational ordinances, angels. and all earthly creatures can be imaginated is expounded, along with an analysis of such activity. its norm. and imaginative results huch as art). Remarks on relations of imagining to science and faith conclude the piece.

The Principle of Credulity---i.e. that if I have an experience apparently of X then in the absence of good reasons to think the experience non-veridical I have evidence that X exists---is an essential premise in many formulations of the argument from religious experience. I defend this use of the principle against objections offered by William Rowe. I argue that experiences of God are checkable. and in ways (epistemically) significantly similar to the ways sensory experiences are checkable. and that treating sensory experiences as Rowe suggests we treat experiences of God demands wholesale scepticism with regard to the senses.

Philosophy and theology have always been, in some measure, a matter of rewriting the past. This can be done with more or less objectivity, more or less insight, however. Of late, the job has not been done at all well with respect to the work of Søren Kierkegaard. His legacy is in danger of being coopted by modem nihilists. I argue in this paper that Kierkegaard’s understanding of truth, subjectivity, and paradox promises, in reality, a middle way between the metaextremes of foundational ism and nihilism. He is, in this sense, anti-modem.

I contend that William Hasker’s argument to show omniscience incompatible with human freedom trades on an ambiguity between altering and bringing about the past, and that it is the latter only which is invoked by one who thinks they are compatible. I then use his notion of precluding circumstances to suggest that what gives the appearance of our inability to freely bring about the future (and hence that omniscience is incompatible with freedom) is that, from God’s perspective of foreknowledge, it is as if the event has already occurred, but that as if conditions do not tell us about the conditions under which the act was performed (whether it was free or not).