HQ

In this paper I will argue that the apparently commonplace activity of referring to God depends on what we take to be the relationship between a given entity and the name of that entity. It is commonly held that reference depends on some definite description of the entity in question. I will argue that Saul Kripke’s criticisms of descriptivism are sufficient to reject the view. However, if we take Kripke’s causal theory or a Millian direct theory of reference we are confronted with the problem of worship. If people from a broad variety of religions can successfully refer to God, then can they be said to worship the same God? In the latter part of the paper I will propose a way to block this inference. There are several problems related to referring to God. Here are two: first, if we have no acquaintance with an entity can we refer to it successfully? Some believe that we experience God in something like a perceptual state. Perhaps we have a sixth sense in virtue of which we can c...

John Hick Religious Pluralism is either descriptive or prescriptive . The descriptive version is merely the observation that there are many different religions. It is hard to imagine anyone disagreeing with this premise. However, prescriptive pluralism is what appears to be implied by such an observation.

When two people, one Christian and one non-Christian, reference God are they referring to the same God? If a Muslim says "Allah be praised" and a Christian says, "praise God!" are they referring to the same God? If one thinks it is the same God, it appears that one would have to lower the differentiation between the two religions. If one says that the references are completely separate, then is it at all possible for an unbeliever to refer to the Christian's God at all? In his speech to the Athenians, Paul refers to the Athenian temple to an unknown god. And what the Athenians deem to be unknown, Paul proposes to declare (or make known) to them. In this case many have argued that Paul indeed thinks that the unbelieving Athenian god is referring somehow to Paul's God. However, Paul continues by presenting a stark contrast of properties possessed by the god of the Athenians and his own God. In his concise su...

Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any gods, the claim that any gods do not exist or the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. But atheism is not merely the removal of gods from the equation; it is the exchange of God for something else. And it is the exchange of truth for a lie. Paul writes: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the...

Evangelicals are worried about atheism; Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett - new atheists  But the number of people who count themselves as atheists is small. Just 4% according to some researchers. Perhaps more people would count themselves as "non-religious" (11%), but that figure may even include Christians who are fond of the saying, "Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship." If one is focused on the spread of the gospel in America there are far larger demographics to be concerned with. Catholics number just over 20%; there are more Mormons in the US than atheists and, since being here, I have met many more protestants who do not believe the gospel than atheists who do not believe in God.

Most Christian apologists set themselves up against atheism. Moreover, their suggested approach is to begin with defeating atheism by showing why theism is more likely to be true. Cornelius Van Til was a little different.  Rather than opposing the belief that there is no God, he opposed the belief that there is an option. Van Til's primary opponent was not one anti theistic belief, but the possibility of a plurality of religious beliefs being, in principle, rational. It was an apologetic contra religious pluralism.

John Hick is most well known for his argument for religious pluralism. He argued that, given that so many people are religious and believe in some kind of divinity, there must be something that all religions refer to. That thing Hick called the "real," a kind of incomprehensible reality that best explains the existence of all religions. Religion is the human appropriation of the "real" in the phenomenal realm. The fact that they are different only goes to show that the real is unknowable in itself and only empirically expressed in human culture. How would a presuppositionalist like Van Til respond? First of all, the Christian presuppositional approach to a philosophy of religion is also a theological approach. Since the analysis of arguments proceeds by way of presupposition it is self-consciously Christian in approach. Cornelius Van Til writes “To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie a...