In this paper I outline and discuss the central claims and arguments of J. L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism. Mackie argues, in essence, that none of the traditional theistic arguments is successful taken either one at a time or in tandem, that the theist does nothave a satisfactory response to the problem of evil, and that on balance the theistic hypothesis is much less probable than is its denial. He then concludes that theism is unsatisfactory and rationally unacceptable. I argue that he is mistaken in nearly all of his major contentions.

Frederic Jameson’s The Political Unconscious attempts a comprehensive theory of hermeneutics based on Marxist principles. Through a three-stage process of interpretation, which moves from text to society to philosophy of history, Jameson investigates a paradigmatic model for textual analysis which will avoid relativistic ideological interpretations. The present article attempts to delineate the similarities and the critical differences between Jameson’s model and a Christian model for hermeneutics. The discussion focuses on concepts of contradiction, finitude, and “discovery” as well as on Jamesonian views of utopia, mode of production, ethics, and “the political unconscious.”

For many religious people there is a problem of doubting various credal statements contained in their religions. Often propositional beliefs are looked upon as necessary conditions for salvation. This causes great anxiety in doubters and raises the question of the importance of belief in religion and in life in general. It is a question that has been neglected in philosophy of religion and theology. In this paper I shall explore the question of the importance of belief as a religious attitude and suggest that there is at least one other attitude which may be adequate for religious faith even in the absence of belief.

This paper examines Küng’s procedure in justifying God at the bar of reason. He first counters nihilism by fundamental trust in reality, which affirms reality as coherent and meaningful. He then builds his case for theism upon trust in God, which is itself the condition of the possibility of fundamental trust in reality. Although claiming an intrinsic rationality for both these acts of trust, his position is ultimately reducible to the fideistic answer to the question of God and thus not justifiable at the bar of reason. A philosophical theology, however, should employ reason in favor of the decision for God.

Analytically inclined philosphers of religion have commonly assumed that 1) “God” must be defined before arguments for or against his existence can be evaluated 2) the history of religious beliefs is irrelevant to their justification. In this paper I apply the causal theory of reference to “God” and challenge both assumptions. If, as Freud supposes, “God” originates in the delusions of the mentally ill then it does not refer. On the other hand, if “God” originates in encounters with some Entity, no matter how vaguely conceived, then That is God.

This paper examines the principle of creation ex nihilo as formulated by St. Augustine and contrasts it with the common-sense principle that “something cannot come from nothing.” It is argued that these two principles, if suitably interpreted, are logically consistent and a creation scenario is described in which their compatibility is demonstrated.

According to the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, the Son of God is truly but only contingently a human being. But is it also the case that Christ’s individual human nature is only contingently united to a divine person? The affirmative answer to this question, explicitly espoused by Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, turns out to be philosophically untenable, while the negative answer, which is arguably implicit in St. Thomas Aquinas, explication of the Incarnation, has some surprising and significant metaphysical consequences.

The fact that many who are currently interested in spirituality tum to non-Christian sources is related to Augustine’s view of divine omnipotence. which was expressed supremely in his anit-Donatist and anti-Pelagian writings. Distinguishing cosmological, theological, and axiological freedom helps us see Pelgius as right on the second even though Augustine was right on the third. Process theology, by defending cosmological freedom against modem thought, theological freedom against pre-modem thought, and an element of truth in Donatism, provides the basis for a post-modem spirituality.

God’s revelation is not uncommonly represented as a past speaking---“God has spoken,” “We have heard.” In order to study how the possibilities of reasoning are affected when the crucial evidence to which reasoning may appeal is a remembered speaking, a parableis offered in which three young brothers dispute whether their mother has called them home. Their arguments necessarily take an ad hominem tum. It is found that the claims of the brother who remembers hearing are provisionally, partially, and prescriptively reasonable. This brother’s position resembles that of St. Paul at Romans 1 :18-32 (“So they are without excuse” ).