What Is the Philosophy of Religion?: A Thomistic Account

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-researched and well-written article. As my comments will make clear, my main concern is with what the author is trying to accomplish.

The title of the article is broad, whereas the focus of the article is much more narrow. A title that more accurately reflects the content would be helpful. Even something like 'What Is Christian Philosophy of Religion?' would be better, since that's really what the author is talking about. The principal contribution of this article is the suggestion that philosophy of religion be broken into two things: natural theology and philosophy of religion. That sounds very much like a distinction that Christian philosophers of religion might make, though philosophers of religion that engage other religions might find this distinction unhelpful or useless. I don't have any strong view on whether this division of labor would be a good idea. However, the author later identifies as Roman Catholic. Stating that up front would probably be a better strategy, since all of us write from a point of view.

The author references many of the key anthologies of philosophy of religion. He notes that they begin by defining the term religion. But there isn't any definition offered by the author of the term. Nor does the author spend any time considering the various definitions of religion given in the anthologies. But it's hard to see how an article with such a title can merely 'skip over' the definition. This problem becomes truly evident once the author is giving his/her opinion regarding what counts as religion. It's clear that the author thinks that religion involves god/God/the supernatural. The author is perfectly free to take that stance. However, then the author needs to argue why his/her conception of religion is superior or somehow better than ones that include non-theistic religions. This problem can also be seen in the discussion (page two) of religion and morality. Again, if we aren't sure what religion is, it's hard to know how religion and morality are supposed to connect.

The author seems familiar with the usual anthologies. However, the author evidences no familiarity with the texts that have dealt with the very specific problem of what philosophy of religion is and what it should be. One example would be Kevin Schilbrack's Philosophy and the Study of Religions. Other examples would be work by Jonathan Z. Smith, Wilfried Cantwell Smith, and the entry 'Philosophy of Religion' in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Religion written by Charles Taliaferro. I mention the last text because Taliaferro attempts a definition, then reverts to saying (paraphrasing) 'let's just assume everything we've always thought was religion or religious'. I have the sense that the author is doing the same here, though there is nothing explicit either way.

Having said all that, the author might want merely to trim back the reach of the article. Does the author want to get into the question of what religion is? If so, there needs to be much more engagement with the question (and it's a very big and difficult question). Of course, the author has the right to limit such an inquiry, usually by simply saying 'I'm doing X not Y'.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of “What is the Philosophy of Religion?”

The author explicitly admits to being in the camp of those who believe that the best philosophical thinking about a religion is done by those who are within and understand it.

Can the [questions considered in philosophy of religion] be dealt with responsibly by anyone outside “the circle of faith”? What kind of appreciation of a religion can be expected of anyone who does not speak from within the embrace of a determinate religion? Here again, we seem to suppose that we “know what we are talking about”: that we have some sense of what it means to live under the authority of a religious tradition . . .

[It will] I trust, surprise no reader of the previous paragraphs, that my own view is that we must first acknowledge “where we are at” or “where we are coming from” in approaching this subject.

The author also admits to focusing on the “fundamental philosophical point of view of Aquinas (thus, a broadly “Aristotelian Neoplatonism”) as well as [the author’s] Catholic faith.”  The author’s “interest, however, is not chiefly to “witness to others” just what such a person might think of the questions [the author has raised], but to think through [the author’s questions] for those who come out of a similar point of view,” which the author acknowledges is likely to be controversial within this tradition.

In one sense, I believe the author is quite successful.  We are given a thoughtful, coherent, well-reasoned understanding of what it means (or should mean) to do philosophy of religion within the tradition in question. 

However, if this is the main point of the article, then a more accurate descriptive title might be “One Way of Understanding (or Doing) Philosophy of Religion.” To entitle the article “What is Philosophy of Religion?” leads the reader to assume that we will at the very least be given a comparative analysis of the various ways this is understood in the literature.  We aren’t, though, helped to understand why others (some of whom edit texts on the topic) answer this question, and this approach the philosophy of religion, differently.

For instance, there are a number of philosophers of religion who think it important to distinguish between religious experience and religious belief.  A religious experience is understood as a personal (subjective) encounter with God or some other aspect of the supernatural realm; a religious belief is a contention that a given characterization of some aspect of a religious belief system is true.  Philosophical reasoning (philosophy of religion) is best understood as an assessment of truth claims (religious beliefs) and not an assessment of or challenge to a person’s religious experience itself.

Moreover, many in this camp believe there to be a good reason to approach philosophy of religion in this way.  Religious beliefs are impactful.  Religious believers often explain reality (including the evil they experience), predict what will occur in relation to important events in their lives, and decide how to treat others on the basis of accepted religious truth claims.  Philosophy of Religion that has as its goal to help believers (and non-believers) critically assess whether impactful religious beliefs are self-consistent, consistent with other beliefs, and/or justifiably affirming can be of great value to religious individuals and those with whom they interact.

This is, of course, not to say that doing Philosophy of Religions this way rather than the way offered by the author or in any of the other ways Philosophy of Religion can be understood is “better;” it’s just different.

The author at times, though, seems to be saying the approach advanced is not just different but better.

It would, I believe, make the essay stronger if the author either acknowledged that the main goal is to explicate one way of doing philosophy of religion or actually flesh out in greater detail some of those ways of doing philosophy of religion that differ before stating in greater detail why the author believes the approach held to be best is in fact so.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf