James F. Sennett and Douglas Groothuis, ed., In Defense of Natural Theology: A PostHumean Assessment. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. 336 pp. ISBN 08308-2767-6. $26 (paperback). This is the companion volume to In Defense of Miracles which was released by InterVarsity Press in 1997. It contains several noted Humean scholars and many well known Christian philosophers. The study of Natural Theology (or thinking about God apart from the Bible) is a vital part (if not the most vital) of Christian apologetics. If there are no (good) reasons to think God exists, then belief in God would be irrational. Thus, if anyone believed in God then it would be on purely fideistic grounds. Many of today’s agnostics and skeptics acknowledge the importance of Hume’s arguments in their own thinking. Indeed, many of the criticisms leveled against religion in general (and Christianity in particular) are taken directly from Hume. Recognizing the importance of Hume’s legacy, the editors have assembled an array of thinkers to combat Hume’s arguments against doing Natural Theology. This is a fairly technical work and a good working knowledge of philosophy and logic is helpful to avoid feeling overwhelmed. Not all of the chapters are as technical and the concepts discussed certainly deserve careful consideration and thought. As such, this book is intended for those who are engaged with skeptical arguments on a regular basis and those who need to present a refutation of skeptical arguments to others. The book is composed of two main parts. Part 1 (composed of four chapters) establishes Hume’s arguments against Natural Theology, and Part 2 (composed of nine chapters) evaluates various aspects of Hume’s thought. Chapter 1 is the introduction written by the editors and lays out the groundwork for the book. Chapter 2 is written by Terence Penelhum, a well known Hume scholar, and puts Hume in an historical context and discusses the most important works Hume wrote on Natural Theology. Chapter 3, written by Hume supporter Todd Furman, explains why skeptics find Hume’s arguments against Natural Theology so effective. Chapter 4 discusses what Hume hoped to accomplish with his philosophy and how Hume planned to accomplish his goal. Chapter 5 examines “Hume’s stopper,” which says that even if Natural Theology were successful in proving there was a God, the God proven by the argumentation is nothing like the God espoused in religious belief. Chapter 6 explores the implications of the cosmological argument in light of Hume’s criticism. Chapter 7 examines the implications of the Kalam cosmological argument. Chapter 8 discusses a possible solution to Hume’s criticisms of teleological arguments. Chapter 9 delves into the “fine-tuning” arguments and their reception (or lack thereof) from skeptics. Chapter 10 examines and critiques Hume’s moral theory and replaces it with something more substantial. Chapter 11 examines Hume’s criteria for an experience and explores whether religious experience is valid. Chapter 12 explores the implications of being able to reason. Chapter 13 examines the enigma of consciousness. And Chapter 14 brings all of the various topics together to show that Christianity is a reasonable position. By far the book’s biggest strength is its critique of Hume’s ideas. The criticisms of Hume range from standard to insightful. A common critique of Hume is that his verification principle (i.e., a statement is meaningful if and only if it is a relation of ideas or a matter of fact) fails its own test (since it is neither a relation of ideas or matter of fact). Hume’s verification principle is literally meaningless. Keith Yandell correctly notes
this is devastating to the Humean enterprise (69). In light of this, any supporter of Hume should take a second look at why they have accepted his philosophy. James Sennett insightfully comments that no other view has undergone the scrutiny of theism and still been able to answer so many philosophical problems with so little modification (94-97). Many of the points offered in the next several chapters illustrate Sennett’s contention. Paul Copan’s critique of Hume’s moral theory is also enlightening (207-213). After reviewing these articles, one should be skeptical of the great skeptic when so many of his arguments fail. While the critique of Hume’s thought in this volume is superb, what is put in its place is sometimes disappointing. The editors admit that they rely on the “very best developments in contemporary philosophy” (15). What this means is that the articles are written in the analytic tradition. Because the analytic tradition concentrates so much on terms there is no consistent doctrine of being. As such, many analytics drop some of the classical attributes of God (most notably, simplicity – the view God is not composed). For example, when Robin Collins is responding to Humean critics of the design argument he seems to accept the critic’s assumption that God exhibits some internal order. He says, “we have no good reason to think that the existence of [God’s] order is a priori improbable” (190). The problem with this is that many defenders of the design argument use a principle that is incompatible with this statement: namely, “organized complexity has an organizer” (which even Collins admits (188-189)). Thus, since God is organized he would need to have an organizer, which is what the critics claim all along. Hence, Collins is right back where he started (188). Collins thinks he has bypassed this criticism by stating his view is more “epistemically probable” (189), but the critic will already have seen the incoherence in the view. And no amount of “epistemic probability” can fight incoherence. This scenario can be avoided by affirming God’s simplicity. Further, the assumed existence of “possible worlds” to explain a designed view of the universe is troubling (194-195). A Humean skeptic would hardly accept “possible world” semantics as a replacement to his skepticism and much less as a refutation of his view. Given the alternative of “possible worlds” a Humean seems justified in his position! This is not to detract from the many valid points throughout the book. All in all, this is an important work in Humean studies. The critiques of Hume are stated clearly, and it is sure to be a topic of conversation for Hume sympathizers [don’t be surprised if there is a rebuttal to this volume from Hume supporters]. Christians who are engaged with Hume’s thought on a regular basis would do well to be familiar with the contents of this volume. Hume was one of the greatest thinkers in world and his influence cannot be overstated. Almost every modern skeptic uses his thought in some way, shape, or form. Many skeptics think Hume sounded the death knell to Natural Theology, but as this volume shows, Natural Theology is alive and well and was apparently absent at its own funeral. Lanny Wilson, M.A.A. 3000 Tilley Morris Rd. Matthews, NC 28105
[email protected]
