What is Faith?: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
In this book, renowned philosopher Anthony Kenny focuses on one of the central questions in the philosophy of religion: is the belief in God and faith in the divine word rational? Surveying what has been said on the topic by such major recent thinkers as Wittgenstein and Platinga, Kenny contructs his own account of what he calls "the intellectual virtue of reasonable belief which stands between skepticism and credulity," which he then applies to the Christian doctrine of faith. Kenny also addresses related questions such as the existence and nature of God and the problem of evil in a world created by an omnipotent being. A fascinating exploration of a subject presented in clear, accessible language, What is Faith? is essential reading for anyone who hopes to understand a debate that has now raged for two thousand years.
existence of God cannot be quite on the same footing,ssince nobody literally sees God or talks with God; but they might have the form of showing that there is something sophistical in any of the arguments which seek to cast doubt on the efficacy of the naive ttheist's theistsththeist's conclusion that there must be a God because the world must have been made by somebody. Whether the natural theologian can succeed in doing this is a large and difficult question; I leave it aside as I am leaving
rather than someone who does not know this, then the negative negative theist and 58 The Virtue of Faith the negative atheist are both better called agnostics. Now is thete there a ptesumption of agnosticism? Yes, there is, in the sense that it takes more to prove knowledge than to exhibit ignorance. But this methodological presumption, of course, does not necessarily let the agnostic off the hook. An examination candidate may be able to justify fully the claim not to know the answer to one of
test of genuine certitude of truth. What looks like certitude always is exposed to the chance of turning out to be a mistake. Certitude does not admit of an interior, immediate test, sufficient to discriminate it from false certitude. (G, 145) Newman correctly distinguishes certainty from infallibility. My memory is not infallible; I remember for certain what I did yesterday, but that does not mean that my memory is infallible. I am quite clear that two and two make four, but I often make
one of the most lucid expositions of natural selection in the English language. On P141 of his book Dawkins considers the following argument offered to show the difficulties of accounting for the origin of life and the existence of the original machinery of replication: Cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while singlestep selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of
supposed to acquire evidence for the universal hoax? Someone tells me 'Whenever you have seen anyone asleep, you have been deceived: we have all been fooling you all along.' Would that not be evidence that he was mad, if he seriously persisted in the suggestion? Suppose everyone tells me the same story. Well, if I begin to think that is what they are doing, I shall have to give up the idea that I understand what kind of thing human beings are or do or say. Fundamental truths such as the