Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion – serie

In the fall of 1994, Hendrik-Jan van Leusen, an acquisitions editor from Kluwer Academic Publishers, visited me in my home to discuss a proposal for a handbook in the philosophy of religion. He reported that he had been talking about this with philosophers of religion at several universities and that the response to the idea had been quite favorable. I suggested that given the dif­ ferent approaches to the philosophy of religion, it might be good for him to meet with philosophers representing different philosophical traditions at an up-coming meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association. Jude Dougherty, Joseph Kockelmans, Robert Neville, William Rowe and Merold Westphal kindly agreed to attend that meeting. They made many substantial and helpful suggestions and a summary of the discussions was sent to van Leusen. Some months later, he wrote to inquire whether I might consider editing the series and writing the first volume which was to provide a historical map of twentieth century western philosophy of religion. Although I could imagine myself editing the series I was initially reluctant to under­ take the task of writing a volume that would take me across the lines of many different philosophical traditions. By coincidence I had been asked some months earlier to contribute an essay on the philosophy of religion for a conference being held at the Catholic University of America on the general topic, "One Hundred Years of Philosophy.

The Thomistic tradition takes it name from the thirteenth-century religious thinker and saint who is its source and inspiration: the Dominican Friar Thomas 1 Aquinas. Aquinas understood himself to be a theologian, and that is what he was. This obvious biographical fact needs to be underlined at the beginning, however, 2 since it has often since been lost sight of in treatments of his thought. The reason for this is that Aquinas also developed a powerful, innovative, and comprehensive philosophy which has proved to be at least as perennial, if not more so, than the theological synthesis that it was originally designed to serve. His followers have kept both strains of his thought alive until this day, but not always combining the same dual expertise. Theology and philosophy have since become more distinct, and as each has fragmented into sub-disciplines of academic specialization, it becomes harder and harder for anyone to master the thought of Aquinas as a as evidenced by the whole. Yet grasping the whole is essential to grasping the part, master work of Aquinas's mind: his Summa theologiae. You cannot understand any part of the Summa unless you understand its place within the whole, and much violence has been done to Aquinas's thought by abstracting it from the larger context in order to present it in discrete units.

When Gene Long, editor of Kluwer's Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion Series, first invited me to write the volume on Analytic Philosophy of Religion, I accepted with great enthusiasm. My only explanation for that enthusiasm now is that I was younger and more naive at the time. Soon after starting work on the volume, my enthusiasm was dampened by the daunting magnitude of the task. I began as a sprinter and quickly settled into the pace of a long-distance runner. Although I considered myself well read in the subject, I soon discovered that I had a great deal of research to do to be confident that I had considered all of the major contributions to the various discussions, issues, and of religion. As I read more and more problems found within analytic philosophy books and articles, I realized that I had rushed into a territory already well trodden by the angels. I am greatly impressed by the sophistication and subtlety of philosophical argument that characterize the different debates in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. This volume covers a vast amount of material. I have endeavored to provide the fairest possible reading of different authors, and, in cases where I include my own critical evaluations and develop my own positions, I have endeavored to provide the strongest possible interpretations of the positions I criticize.

In the fall of 1994, Hendrik-Jan van Leusen, an acquisitions editor from Kluwer Academic Publishers, visited me in my home to discuss a proposal for a handbook in the philosophy of religion. He reported that he had been talking about this with philosophers of religion at several universities and that the response to the idea had been quite favorable. I suggested that given the dif­ ferent approaches to the philosophy of religion, it might be good for him to meet with philosophers representing different philosophical traditions at an up-coming meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association. Jude Dougherty, Joseph Kockelmans, Robert Neville, William Rowe and Merold Westphal kindly agreed to attend that meeting. They made many substantial and helpful suggestions and a summary of the discussions was sent to van Leusen. Some months later, he wrote to inquire whether I might consider editing the series and writing the first volume which was to provide a historical map of twentieth century western philosophy of religion. Although I could imagine myself editing the series I was initially reluctant to under­ take the task of writing a volume that would take me across the lines of many different philosophical traditions. By coincidence I had been asked some months earlier to contribute an essay on the philosophy of religion for a conference being held at the Catholic University of America on the general topic, "One Hundred Years of Philosophy.

The Thomistic tradition takes it name from the thirteenth-century religious thinker and saint who is its source and inspiration: the Dominican Friar Thomas 1 Aquinas. Aquinas understood himself to be a theologian, and that is what he was. This obvious biographical fact needs to be underlined at the beginning, however, 2 since it has often since been lost sight of in treatments of his thought. The reason for this is that Aquinas also developed a powerful, innovative, and comprehensive philosophy which has proved to be at least as perennial, if not more so, than the theological synthesis that it was originally designed to serve. His followers have kept both strains of his thought alive until this day, but not always combining the same dual expertise. Theology and philosophy have since become more distinct, and as each has fragmented into sub-disciplines of academic specialization, it becomes harder and harder for anyone to master the thought of Aquinas as a as evidenced by the whole. Yet grasping the whole is essential to grasping the part, master work of Aquinas's mind: his Summa theologiae. You cannot understand any part of the Summa unless you understand its place within the whole, and much violence has been done to Aquinas's thought by abstracting it from the larger context in order to present it in discrete units.

When Gene Long, editor of Kluwer's Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion Series, first invited me to write the volume on Analytic Philosophy of Religion, I accepted with great enthusiasm. My only explanation for that enthusiasm now is that I was younger and more naive at the time. Soon after starting work on the volume, my enthusiasm was dampened by the daunting magnitude of the task. I began as a sprinter and quickly settled into the pace of a long-distance runner. Although I considered myself well read in the subject, I soon discovered that I had a great deal of research to do to be confident that I had considered all of the major contributions to the various discussions, issues, and of religion. As I read more and more problems found within analytic philosophy books and articles, I realized that I had rushed into a territory already well trodden by the angels. I am greatly impressed by the sophistication and subtlety of philosophical argument that characterize the different debates in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. This volume covers a vast amount of material. I have endeavored to provide the fairest possible reading of different authors, and, in cases where I include my own critical evaluations and develop my own positions, I have endeavored to provide the strongest possible interpretations of the positions I criticize.

This is the first book that provides access to twelve Continental philosophers and the consequences of their thinking for the philosophy of religion. Basically, in the second half of the twentieth century, it has been treated from within the Anglo- American school of philosophy, which deals mainly with proofs and truths, and questions of faith. This approach is more concerned with human experience, and pays more attention to historical context and cultural influences. As such, it provides challenging questions about the way forward for philosophy of religion in the twenty-first century.