Philosophy of religion

Philosophy of religion is "the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions."[1] These sorts of philosophical discussion are ancient, and can be found in the earliest known manuscripts concerning philosophy. The field is related to many other branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.[2]

The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief system. It is designed such that it can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers.[3]


Bronnikov gimnpifagoreizev
Pythagoreans Celebrate the Sunrise (1869) by Fyodor Bronnikov. Pythagoreanism is one example of a Greek philosophy that also included religious elements.

Philosopher William L. Rowe characterized the philosophy of religion as: "the critical examination of basic religious beliefs and concepts."[4] Philosophy of religion covers alternative beliefs about God (or gods), the varieties of religious experience, the interplay between science and religion, the nature and scope of good and evil, and religious treatments of birth, history, and death.[1] The field also includes the ethical implications of religious commitments, the relation between faith, reason, experience and tradition, concepts of the miraculous, the sacred revelation, mysticism, power, and salvation.[5]

The term "Philosophy of Religion" did not come into general use in the West until the nineteenth century,[6] and most pre-modern and early modern philosophical works included a mixture of religious themes and "non-religious" philosophical questions. In Asia, examples include texts such as the Hindu Upanishads, the works of Daoism and Confucianism and Buddhist texts.[7] Greek philosophies like Pythagoreanism and Stoicism included religious elements and theories about deities, and Medieval philosophy was strongly influenced by the big three Monotheistic Abrahamic religions. In the Western world, early modern philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and George Berkeley discussed religious topics alongside secular philosophical issues as well. [2]

The philosophy of religion has been distinguished from theology by pointing out that, for theology, "its critical reflections are based on religious convictions".[8] Also, "theology is responsible to an authority that initiates its thinking, speaking, and witnessing ... [while] philosophy bases its arguments on the ground of timeless evidence."[9]

Some aspects of philosophy of religion have classically been regarded as a part of metaphysics. In Aristotle's Metaphysics, the necessarily prior cause of eternal motion was an unmoved mover, who, like the object of desire, or of thought, inspires motion without itself being moved.[10] This, according to Aristotle, is God, the subject of study in theology. Today, however, philosophers have adopted the term "philosophy of religion" for the subject, and typically it is regarded as a separate field of specialization, although it is also still treated by some, particularly Catholic philosophers, as a part of metaphysics.

Basic themes and problems

Ultimate Reality

Different religions have different ideas about Ultimate Reality, its source or ground (or lack thereof) and also about what is the "Maximal Greatness".[11][12] Paul Tillich's concept of 'Ultimate Concern' and Rudolf Otto's 'Idea of the Holy' are concepts which point to concerns about the ultimate or highest truth which most religious philosophies deal with in some way. One of the main differences among religions is whether the Ultimate Reality is a personal God or an impersonal reality.[13][14]

In Western religions, various forms of Theism are the most common conceptions of the ultimate Good, while in Eastern Religions, there are theistic and also various non-theistic conceptions of the Ultimate. Theistic vs non-theistic is a common way of sorting the different types of religions.[15]

There are also several philosophical positions with regard to the existence of God that one might take including various forms of Theism (such as Monotheism and Polytheism), Agnosticism and different forms of Atheism.


Aquinas considered five arguments for the existence of God, widely known as the quinque viae (Five Ways).

Monotheism is the belief in a single deity or God, who is ontologically independent.[16] There are many forms of monotheism. Keith Yandell outlines roughly three kinds of historical monotheisms: Greek, Semitic and Hindu. Greek monotheism holds that the world has always existed and does not believe in Creationism or divine providence, while Semitic monotheism believes the world is created by a God at a particular point in time and that this God acts in the world.[17] Indian monotheism meanwhile teaches that the world is beginningless, but that there is God's act of creation which sustains the world.[18]

The attempt to provide proofs or arguments for the existence of God is one aspect of what is known as natural theology or the natural theistic project. This strand of natural theology attempts to justify belief in God by independent grounds. Perhaps most of philosophy of religion is predicated on natural theology's assumption that the existence of God can be justified or warranted on rational grounds. There has been considerable philosophical and theological debate about the kinds of proofs, justifications and arguments that are appropriate for this discourse.[19] Common types of arguments for the existence of god include:

Skeptics and atheists have put forth various arguments against the existence of God including:

Non-theistic conceptions

Seshin Vasubandhu Kofukuji
The Buddhist Vasubandhu argued against Hindu Creator God views and for an impersonal conception of absolute reality that has been described as a form of Idealism.[22]

Eastern Religions have included both theistic and other alternative positions about the ultimate nature of reality. One such view is Jainism, which holds a dualistic view that all that exists is matter and a multiplicity of souls (jiva), without depending on a supreme deity for their existence. There are also different Buddhist views, such as the Theravada Abhidharma view, which holds that the only ultimately existing things are transitory phenomenal events (dharmas) and their interdependent relations.[23] Madhyamaka Buddhists such as Nagarjuna hold that Ultimate reality is emptiness (shunyata) while the Yogacara holds that it is vijñapti (mental phenomena). In Indian philosophical discourses, monotheism was defended by Hindu philosophers (particularly the Nyaya school), while Buddhist thinkers argued against their conception of a Creator God (Sanskrit: Ishvara).[24]

The Hindu view of Advaita Vedanta, as defended by Adi Shankara, is a total non-dualism. Though Advaitins do believe in the usual Hindu gods, their view of ultimate reality is a radically monistic oneness (Brahman without qualities) and anything which appears (like persons and gods) is illusory (maya).[25] The various philosophical positions of Chinese Taoism can also be viewed as non-theistic about the ultimate reality (Tao).

For most of these non-theistic traditions, the path to ultimate reality includes various spiritual practices such as yoga and meditation.

It is important to note that the above philosophical views do not necessarily entail atheism. Traditionally, Jains and Buddhists did not rule out the existence of limited deities or divine beings, they only rejected the idea of a single all powerful creator God or First cause posited by monotheists.

Knowledge and belief

Blind monks examining an elephant
The Blind men and an elephant is a parable widely used in Buddhism and Jainism to illustrate the dangers of dogmatic religious belief

All religious traditions make knowledge claims which they argue are central to religious practice and to the ultimate solution to the main problem of human life.[26] These include epistemic, metaphysical and ethical claims.

Evidentialism is the position that may be characterized as "a belief is rationally justified only if there is sufficient evidence for it".[27] Many theists and non-theists are evidentialists, for example, Aquinas and Bertrand Russell agree that belief in God is rational only if there is sufficient evidence, but disagree on whether such evidence exists.[27] These arguments often stipulate that subjective religious experiences are not reasonable evidence and thus religious truths must be argued based on non-religious evidence. One of the strongest positions of evidentialism is that by William Kingdon Clifford who wrote: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence".[28] More recent supporters of evidentialism include Antony Flew ("The Presumption of Atheism", 1972) and Michael Scriven (Primary philosophy, 1966). Both of them rely on the Ockhamist view that in the absence of evidence for X, belief in X is not justified. Many modern Thomists are also evidentialists in that they hold they can demonstrate there is evidence for the belief in God. Another move is to argue in a Bayesian way for the probability of a religious truth like God, not for total conclusive evidence.[28]

Some philosophers however, argue that religious belief is warranted without evidence and hence are sometimes called non-evidentialists. They include fideists and reformed epistemologists. Alvin Plantinga and other reformed epistemologists are examples of philosophers who argue that religious beliefs are "properly basic beliefs" and that it is not irrational to hold them even though they are not supported by any evidence.[29][30] The rationale here is that some beliefs we hold must be foundational and not be based on further rational beliefs, if this is not so we risk an infinite regress. This is qualified by the proviso that they can be defended against objections (this differentiates this view from fideism). A properly basic belief is a belief that one can reasonably hold without evidence, such as a memory, a basic sensation or a perception. Plantinga's argument is that belief in God is of this type, because within every human mind there is a natural awareness of divinity.[31]

William James in his essay "The Will to Believe" argues for a pragmatic conception of religious belief. For James, religious belief is justified if one is presented with a question which is rationally undecidable and if one is presented with genuine and live options which are relevant for the individual.[32] For James, religious belief is defensible because of the pragmatic value it can bring to one's life, even if there is no rational evidence for it.

Some work in recent epistemology of religion goes beyond debates over evidentialism, fideism, and reformed epistemology to consider contemporary issues deriving from new ideas about knowledge-how and practical skill; how practical factors can affect whether one could know whether theism is true; from formal epistemology's use of probability theory; or from social epistemology (particularly the epistemology of testimony, or the epistemology of disagreement).[33]

For example, an important topic in the epistemology of religion is that of religious disagreement, and the issue of what it means for intelligent individuals of the same epistemic parity to disagree about religious issues. Religious disagreement has been seen as possibly posing first-order or higher-order problems for religious belief. A first order problem refers to whether that evidence directly applies to the truth of any religious proposition, while a higher order problem instead applies to whether one has rationally assessed the first order evidence.[34] One example of a first order problem is the Argument from nonbelief. Higher order discussions focus on whether religious disagreement with epistemic peers (someone whose epistemic ability is equal to our own) demands us to adopt a skeptical or agnostic stance or whether to reduce or change our religious beliefs.

Faith and reason

While religions resort to rational arguments to attempt to establish their views, they also claim that religious belief is at least partially to be accepted through faith, confidence or trust in one's religious belief.[35] There are different conceptions or models of faith, including:[36]

  • The affective model of faith sees it as a feeling of trust, a psychological state
  • The special knowledge model of faith as revealing specific religious truths (defended by Reformed epistemology)
  • The belief model of faith as the theoretical conviction that a certain religious claim is true.
  • Faith as trusting, as making a fiducial commitment such as trusting in God.
  • The practical doxastic venture model where faith is seen as a commitment to believe in the trustworthiness of a religious truth or in God. In other words, to trust in God presupposes belief, thus faith must include elements of belief and trust.
  • The non-doxastic venture model of faith as practical commitment without actual belief (defended by non-realists like J. L. Schellenberg and Don Cupitt). In this view, one need not believe in literal religious claims about reality to have religious faith.
  • The hope model, faith as hoping

There are also different positions on how faith relates to reason. One example is the belief that faith and reason are compatible and work together, which is the view of Thomas Aquinas and the orthodox view of Catholic natural theology. According to this view, reason establishes certain religious truths and faith (guided by reason) gives us access to truths about the divine which, according to Aquinas, "exceed all the ability of human reason."[37]

Another position on is Fideism, the view that faith is "in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason."[38] This view was famously defended by the theologian Tertullian (c.160–230 CE). Modern philosophers such as Kierkegaard, William James, and Wittgenstein have been associated with this label. Kierkegaard in particular, argued for the necessity of the religious to take a non-rational leap of faith to bridge the gulf between man and God. Wittgensteinian fideism meanwhile sees religious language games as being incommensurate with scientific and metaphysical language games, and that they are autonomous and thus may only be judged on their own standards. The obvious criticism to this is that many religions clearly put forth metaphysical claims.[28]

Several contemporary New Atheist writers which are hostile to religion hold a related view which says that religious claims and scientific claims are opposed to each other, and that therefore religions are false.[39]

The Protestant theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) argued that religious believers have no need to prove their beliefs through reason and thus rejected the project of natural theology. According to Barth, human reason is corrupt and God is utterly different from his creatures, thus we can only rely on God's own revelation for religious knowledge. Barth's view has been termed Neo-orthodoxy. [40] Similarly, D.Z. Phillips argues that God is not intelligible through reason or evidence because God is not an empirical object or a 'being among beings'.[41]

As Brian Davies points out, the problem with positions like Barth's is that they do not help us in deciding between inconsistent and competing revelations of the different religions.[42]


The topic of whether religious beliefs are compatible with science and in what way is also another important topic in the philosophy of religion as well as in theology. This field draws the historical study of their interactions and conflicts, such as the debates in the United States over the teaching of evolution and creationism.[43] There are different models of interaction that have been discussed in the philosophical literature, including :[43]

The field also draws the scientific study of religion, particularly by psychologists and sociologists as well as cognitive scientists. Various theories about religion have arisen from these various disciplines. One example is the various evolutionary theories of religion which see the phenomenon as either adaptive or a by-product. Another can be seen in the various theories put forth by the Cognitive science of religion.

Religious experience

Closely tied to the issues of knowledge and belief is the question of how to interpret religious experiences vis-à-vis their potential for providing knowledge.[44] Religious experiences have been recorded throughout all cultures and are widely diverse. These personal experiences tend to be highly important to the individuals who undergo them.[45] Discussions about religious experiences can be said to be informed in part by the question: "what sort of information about what there is might religious experience provide, and how could one tell?"[44]

One could interpret these experiences either veridically, neutrally or as delusions. Both monotheistic and non-monotheistic religious thinkers and mystics have appealed to religious experiences as evidence for their claims about ultimate reality. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and William Alston have compared religious experiences to everyday perceptions, that is, both are noetic and have a perceptual object, and thus religious experiences could logically be veridical unless we have a good reason to disbelieve them.[46]

According to Brian Davies common objections against the veridical force of religious experiences include the fact that experience is frequently deceptive and that people who claim an experience of a god may be "mistakenly identifying an object of their experience", or be insane or hallucinating.[47] However, he argues that we cannot deduce from the fact that our experiences are sometimes mistaken, hallucinations or distorted to the conclusion that all religious experiences are mistaken etc. Indeed, a drunken or hallucinating person could still perceive things correctly, therefore these objections cannot be said to necessarily disprove all religious experiences.[47]

According to C. B. Martin, "there are no tests agreed upon to establish genuine experience of God and distinguish it decisively from the ungenuine", and therefore all that religious experiences can establish is the reality of these psychological states.[48]

Naturalistic explanations for religious experiences are often seen as undermining their epistemic value. Explanations such as the fear of death, suggestion, infantile regression, sexual frustration, neurological anomalies ("it's all in the head") as well as the socio-political power that having such experiences might grant to a mystic have been put forward.[49] A hostile position was famously taken by Bertrand Russell who have compared the veridical value of religious experiences to the hallucinations of a drunk person: "From a scientific point of view, we can make no distinction between the man who eats little and sees heaven and the man who drinks much and sees snakes. Each is in an abnormal physical condition, and therefore has abnormal perceptions."[50] However, as William L. Rowe notes:

The hidden assumption in Russell's argument is that bodily and mental states that interfere with reliable perceptions of the physical world also interfere with reliable perceptions of a spiritual world beyond the physical, if there is such a spiritual world to be perceived. Perhaps this assumption is reasonable, but it certainly is not obviously true.[51]

In other words, as argued by C.D. Broad, "one might need to be slightly 'cracked'" or at least appear to be mentally and physically abnormal in order to perceive the supranormal spiritual world.[51]

William James meanwhile takes a middle course between accepting mystical experiences as veridical or seeing them as delusional. He argues that for the individual who experiences them, they are authoritative and they break down the authority of the rational mind. Not only that, but according to James, the mystic is justified in this. But when it comes to the non-mystic, the outside observer, they have no reason to regard them as either veridical nor delusive.[52]

The study of religious experiences from the perspective of the field of phenomenology has also been a feature of the philosophy of religion. Key thinkers in this field include William Brede Kristensen and Gerard van der Leeuw.


Avatars of Vishnu
Depiction of the theophany scene in the Bhagavadgita wherein Krishna reveals his universal form to Arjuna.

Just like there are different religions, there are different forms of religious experience. One could have "subject/content" experiences (such as a euphoric meditative state) and "subject/consciousness/object" experiences (such as the perception of having seen a god, i.e. theophany).[53] Experiences of theophany are described in ancient Mediterranean religious works and myths and include the story of Semele who died due to her seeing Zeus and the Biblical story of the Burning bush. Indian texts like the Bhagavad Gita also contain theophanic events. The diversity (sometimes to the point of contradiction) of religious experiences has also been used as an argument against their veridical nature, and as evidence that they are a purely subjective psychological phenomenon.[54]

In Western thought, religious experience (mainly a theistic one) has been described by the likes of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Rudolf Otto and William James. According to Schleiermacher, the distinguishing feature of a religious experience is that "one is overcome by the feeling of absolute dependence."[55] Otto meanwhile, argued that while this was an important element, the most basic feature of religious experiences is that it is numinous. He described this as "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self" as well as having the qualities of being a mystery, terrifying and fascinating.[56]

Rowe meanwhile defined a religious experience as "an experience in which one senses the immediate presence of the divine."[57] According to Rowe, religious experiences can be divided in the following manner:[58]

  • Religious experiences in which one senses the presence of the divine as being distinct from oneself.
  • Mystical experiences in which one senses one's own union with a divine presence.
    • The extrovertive way looks outward through the senses into the world around us and finds the divine reality there.
    • The introvertive way turns inward and finds the divine reality in the deepest part of the self.

Non-monotheistic religions meanwhile also report different experiences from theophany, such as non-dual experiences of oneness and deeply focused meditative states (termed Samadhi in Indian religion) as well as experiences of final enlightenment or liberation (moksha, nirvana, kevala in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism respectively).

Another typology, offered by Chad Meister, differentiates between three major experiences:[59]

  • Regenerative experiences, in which an individual feels reborn, transformed or changed radically, usually resulting in religious conversion.
  • Charismatic experiences, in which special gifts, abilities, or blessings are manifested (such as healing, visions, etc.)
  • Mystical experiences, which can be described using William James qualifications as being: Ineffable, Noetic, transient and passive.

Perennialism vs Constructivism

Another debate on this topic is whether all religious cultures share common core mystical experiences (Perennialism) or whether these experiences are in some way socially and culturally constructed (Constructivism or Contextualism). According to Walter Stace all cultures share mystical experiences of oneness with the external world, as well as introverted "Pure Conscious Events" which is empty of all concepts, thoughts, qualities, etc. except pure consciousness.[49] Similarly Ninian Smart argued that monistic experiences were universal. Perennialists tend to distinguish between the experience itself, and its post experience interpretation to make sense of the different views in world religions.[49]

Some constructivists like Steven T. Katz meanwhile have argued against the common core thesis, and for either the view that every mystical experience contains at least some concepts (soft constructivism) or that they are strongly shaped and determined by one's religious ideas and culture (hard constructivism).[49] In this view, the conceptual scheme of any mystic strongly shapes their experiences and because mystics from different religions have very different schemas, there cannot be any universal mystical experiences.[49]

Religion and ethics

Sacrifice of Isaac-Caravaggio (Uffizi)
Sacrifice of Isaac, by Caravaggio.

All religions argue for certain values and ideas of the moral Good. Non-monotheistic Indian traditions like Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta find the highest Good in nirvana or moksha which leads to release from suffering and the rounds of rebirth and morality is a means to achieve this, while for monotheistic traditions, God is the source or ground of all morality and heaven in the highest human good. The world religions also offer different conceptions of the source of evil and suffering in the world, that is, what is wrong with human life and how to solve and free ourselves from these dilemmas.[60] For example, for Christianity, sin is the source of human problems, while for Buddhism, it is craving and ignorance.

A general question which philosophy of religion asks is what is the relationship, if any, between morality and religion. Brian Davies outlines four possible theses:[61]

  • Morality somehow requires religion. One example of this view is Kant's idea that morality should lead us to believe in a moral law, and thus to believe in an upholder of that law, that is, God.
  • Morality is somehow included in religion, "The basic idea here is that being moral is part of what being religious means."[62]
  • Morality is pointless without religion, for one would have no reason to be moral without it.
  • Morality and religion are opposed to each other. In this view, belief in a God would mean one would do whatever that God commands, even if it goes against morality. The view that religion and morality are often opposed has been espoused by atheists like Lucretius and Bertrand Russell as well as by theologians like Kierkegaard who argued for a 'teleological suspension of the ethical'.[63]

Monotheistic religions who seek to explain morality and its relationship to God must deal with what is termed the Euthyphro dilemma, famously stated in the Platonic dialogue "Euthyphro" as: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον, i.e. what is morally good) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Those who hold that what is moral is so because it is what God commands are defending a version of the Divine command theory.

Another important topic which is widely discussed in Abrahamic monotheistic religious philosophy is the problem of human Free will and God's omniscience. God's omniscience could presumably include perfect knowledge of the future, leading to Theological determinism and thus possibly contradicting with human free will.[64] There are different positions on this including libertarianism (free will is true) and Predestination.


Belief in miracles and supernatural events or occurrences is common among world religions. A miracle is an event which cannot be explained by rational or scientific means. The Resurrection of Jesus and the Miracles of Muhammad are examples of miracles claimed by religions.

Skepticism towards the supernatural can be found in early philosophical traditions like the Indian Carvaka school and Greco-Roman philosophers like Lucretius. David Hume, who defined a miracle as "a violation of the laws of nature", famously argued against miracles in Of Miracles, Section X of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (1748). For Hume, the probability that a miracle hasn't occurred is always greater than the probability that it has because "as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws [of nature], the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined" (Enquiry. X. p. 173).[1] Hume doesn't argue that a miracle is impossible, only that it is unreasonable to believe in any testimony of a miracle's occurrence, for evidence for the regularity of natural laws is much stronger than human testimony (which is often in error).[65]

According to Rowe, there are two weaknesses with Hume's argument. First, there could be other forms of indirect evidence for the occurrence of a miracle that does not include testimony of someone's direct experience of it. Secondly, Rowe argues that Hume overestimates "the weight that should be given to past experience in support of some principle thought to be a law of nature." For it is a common occurrence that currently accepted ideas of natural laws are revised due to an observed exception but Hume's argument would lead one to conclude that these exceptions do not occur.[66] Rowe adds that "It remains true, however, that a reasonable person will require quite strong evidence before believing that a law of nature has been violated. It is easy to believe the person who claimed to see water run downhill, but quite difficult to believe that someone saw water run uphill."[67]

Another definition of a miracle is possible however, which is termed the Epistemic theory of miracles and was argued for by Spinoza and St. Augustine. This view rejects that a miracle is a transgression of natural laws, but is simply a transgression of our current understanding of natural law. In the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Spinoza writes: "miracles are only intelligible as in relation to human opinions, and merely mean events of which the natural cause cannot be explained by a reference to any ordinary occurrence, either by us, or at any rate, by the writer and narrator of the miracle" (Tractatus p. 84). Similarly, R.F. Holland has defined miracle in a naturalistic way in a widely cited paper. For Holland, a miracle need only be an extraordinary and beneficial coincidence interpreted religiously.[68]

Brian Davies notes that even if we can establish that a miracle has occurred, it is hard to see what this is supposed to prove. For it is possible that they arise due to agencies which are unusual and powerful, but not divine.[69]


World religions put forth various theories which affirm life after death and different kinds of postmortem existence. This is often tied to belief in an immortal individual soul or self (Sanskrit: atman) separate from the body which survives death, as defended by Plato, Descartes, Monotheistic religions like Christianity and many Indian philosophers. This view is also a position on the mind body problem, mainly, dualism.[70] This view then must show not only that dualism is true and that souls exist, but also that souls survive death. As Kant famously argued, the mere existence of a soul does not prove its immortality, for one could conceive that a soul, even if it is totally simple, could still fade away or lose its intensity.[71] H. H. Price is one modern philosopher who has speculated at length about what it would be like to be a disembodied soul after death.

One major issue with soul beliefs is that since personhood is closely tied to one's physical body, it seems difficult to make sense of a human being existing apart from their body. A further issue is with continuity of personal identity, that is, it is not easy to account for the claim that the person that exists after bodily death is the same person that existed before.[72]

Bertrand Russell put forth the general scientific argument against the afterlife as follows:

Persons are part of the everyday world with which science is concerned, and the conditions which determine their existence are discoverable...we know that the brain is not immortal, and that the organized energy of a living body becomes, as it were, demobilized at death and therefore not available for collective action. All the evidence goes to show that what we regard as our mental life is bound up with brain structure and organized bodily energy. Therefore it is rational to suppose that mental life ceases when bodily life ceases. The argument is only one of probability, but it is as strong as those upon which most scientific conclusions are based.[73]

Contra Russell, J. M. E. McTaggart argues that people have no scientific proof that the mind is dependent on the body in this particular way. As Rowe notes, the fact that the mind depends on the functions of the body while one is alive is not necessarily proof that the mind will cease functioning after death just as a person trapped in a room while depending on the windows to see the outside world might continue to see even after the room ceases to exist.[74]

Buddhism is one religion which, while affirming postmortem existence (through rebirth), denies the existence of individual souls and instead affirms a deflationary view of personal identity, termed not-self (anatta).

While physicalism has generally been seen as hostile to notions of an afterlife, this need not be the case. Abrahamic religions like Christianity have traditionally held that life after death will include the element of bodily resurrection.[75] One objection to this view is that it seems difficult to account for personal continuity, at best, a resurrected body is a replica of the resurrected person not the same person.[76] One response is the constitution view of persons, which says persons are constituted by their bodies and by a "first-person perspective", the capacity to think of oneself as oneself. In this view, what is resurrected is that first person perspective, or both the person's body and that perspective. An objection to this view is that it seems difficult to differentiate one person's first person perspective from another person's without reference to temporal and spatial relations.[76] Peter van Inwagen meanwhile, offers the following theory:

Perhaps at the moment of each man's death, God removes his corpse and replaces it with a simulacrum which is what is burned or rots. Or perhaps God is not quite so wholesale as this: perhaps He removes for "safekeeping" only the "core person"—the brain and central nervous system—or even some special part of it. These are details. (van Inwagen 1992: 245–46)[76]

This view shows how some positions on the nature of the afterlife are closely tied to and sometimes completely depend upon theistic positions. This close connection between the two views was made by Kant, who argued that one can infer an afterlife from belief in a just God who rewards persons for their adherence to moral law.[71]

Other discussions on the philosophy of the afterlife deal with phenomena such as near death experiences, reincarnation research, and other parapsychological events and hinge on whether naturalistic explanations for these phenomena is enough to explain them or not. Such discussions are associated with philosophers like William James, Henry Sidgwick, C.D. Broad, and H.H. Price.[71]

Diversity and pluralism

Jain philosophers, such as Yashovijaya, defended a theory of Anekantavada which could be interpreted as a form of inclusivism.

The issue of how one is to understand religious diversity and the plurality of religious views and beliefs has been a central concern of the philosophy of religion.

There are various philosophical positions regarding how one is to make sense of religious diversity, including exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, relativism, atheism or antireligion and agnosticism.

Religious exclusivism is the claim that only one religion is true and that others are wrong. To say that a religion is exclusivistic can also mean that salvation or human freedom is only attainable by the followers of one's religion.[77] This view tends to be the orthodox view of most monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, though liberal and modernist trends within them might differ. William L Rowe outlines two problems with this view. The first problem is that it is easy to see that if this is true, a large portion of humanity is excluded from salvation and it is hard to see how a loving god would desire this. The second problem is that once we become acquainted with the saintly figures and virtuous people in other religions, it can be difficult to see how we could say they are excluded from salvation just because they are not part of our religion.[78]

A different view is inclusivism, which is the idea that "one's own tradition alone has the whole truth but that this truth is nevertheless partially reflected in other traditions."[79] An inclusivist might maintain that their religion is privileged, they can also hold that other religious adherents have fundamental truths and even that they will be saved or liberated.[80] The Jain view of Anekantavada ('many-sidedness') has been interpreted by some as a tolerant view which is an inclusive acceptance of the partial truth value of non-Jain religious ideas.[81] As Paul Dundas notes, the Jains ultimately held the thesis that Jainism is the final truth, while other religions only contain partial truths.[82] Other scholars such as Kristin Beise Kiblinger have also argued that some of the Buddhist traditions include inclusivist ideas and attitudes.[83]

In the modern Western study of religion, the work of Ninian Smart has also been instrumental in representing a more diverse understanding of religion and religious pluralism. Smart's view is that there are genuine differences between religions.[84]

Pluralism is the view that all religions are equally valid responses to the divine and that they are all valid paths to personal transformation.[85] This approach is taken by John Hick, who has developed a pluralistic view which synthesizes components of various religious traditions. Hick promotes an idea of a noumenal sacred reality which different religions provide us access to.[84] Hick defines his view as "the great world faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real or the Ultimate."[86] For Hick, all religions are true because they all allow us to encounter the divine reality, even if they have different deities and conceptions of it. Rowe notes that a similar idea is proposed by Paul Tillich's concept of Being-itself.[87]

The view of perennialism is that there is a single or core truth or experience which is shared by all religions even while they use different terms and language to express it. This view is espoused by the likes of Aldous Huxley, the thinkers of the Traditionalist School as well as Neo-Vedanta.

Yet another way of responding to the conflicting truth claims of religions is Relativism. Joseph Runzo., one of its most prominent defenders, has argued for henofideism which states that the truth of a religious worldview is relative to each community of adherents.[88] Thus while religions have incompatible views, each one is individually valid as they emerge from individual experiences of a plurality of phenomenal divine realities.[89] According to Runzo, this view does not reduce the incompatible ideas and experiences of different religions to mere interpretations of the Real and thus preserves their individual dignity.[89]

Another response to the diversity and plurality of religious beliefs and deities throughout human history is one of skepticism towards all of them (or even antireligion), seeing them as illusions or human creations which serve human psychological needs.[90] Sigmund Freud was a famous proponent of this view, in various publications such as The Future of an Illusion (1927) and Civilization and Its Discontents (1930). According to Freud, "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."[91]

While one can be skeptical towards the claims of religion, one need not be hostile towards religion. Don Cupitt is one example of someone who, while disbelieving in the metaphysical and cosmological claims of his religion, holds that one can practice it with a "non-realist" perspective which sees religious claims as human inventions and myths to live by.[92]

Religious language

The question of religious language and in what sense it can be said to be meaningful has been a central issue of the philosophy of religion since the work of the Vienna circle, a group of philosophers who, influenced by Wittgenstein, put forth the theory of Logical positivism. Their view was that religious language, such as any talk of God cannot be verified empirically and thus was ultimately meaningless.[93] This position has also been termed Theological noncognitivism. A similar view can be seen in David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, where he famously wrote that any work which did not include either (1) abstract reasoning on quantity or number or (2) reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence was "nothing but sophistry and illusion".[94]

In a similar vein, Antony Flew, questioned the validity of religious statements because they do not seem to be falsifiable, that is, religious claims do not seem to allow any counter evidence to count against them and thus they seem to be lacking in content.[95] While such arguments were popular in the 1950s and 60s, the verification principle and falsifiability as a criterion for meaning are no longer as widely held.[96] The main problem with verificationism is that it seems to be self refuting, for it is a claim which does not seem to be supported by its own criterion.[84]

As noted by Brian Davies, when talking about God and religious truths, religious traditions tend to resort to metaphor, negation and analogy.[97] The via negativa has been defended by thinkers such as Maimonides who denied that positive statements about God were helpful and wrote: "you will come nearer to the knowledge and comprehension of God by the negative attributes."[98] Similar approaches based on negation can be seen in the Hindu doctrine of Neti neti and the Buddhist philosophy of Madhyamaka.

Wittgenstein's theory of language games also shows how one can use analogical religious language to describe God or religious truths, even if the words one is using do not in this case refer to their everyday sense, i.e. when we say God is wise, we do not mean he is wise in the same sense that a person is wise, yet it can still make sense to talk in this manner.[99] However, as Patrick Sherry notes, the fact that this sort of language may make sense does not mean that one is warranted in ascribing these terms to God, for there must be some connection between the relevant criteria we use in ascribing these terms to conventional objects or subjects and to God.[100] As Chad Meister notes though, for Wittgenstein, a religion's language game need not reflect some literal picture of reality (as a picture theory of meaning would hold) but is useful simply because its ability to "reflect the practices and forms of life of the various religious adherents."[101] Following Wittgenstein, philosophers of religion like Norman Malcolm, B. R. Tilghman, and D. Z. Phillips have argued that instead of seeing religious language as referring to some objective reality, we should instead see it as referring to forms of life. This approach is generally termed non-realist.[84]

Against this view, realists respond that non-realism subverts religious belief and the intelligibility of religious practice. It is hard to see for example, how one can pray to a God without believing that they really exist. Realists also argue that non-realism provides no normative way to choose between competing religions.[84]

Analytic philosophy of religion

In Analytic Philosophy of Religion, James Franklin Harris noted that

analytic philosophy has been a very heterogeneous 'movement'.... some forms of analytic philosophy have proven very sympathetic to the philosophy of religion and have actually provided a philosophical mechanism for responding to other more radical and hostile forms of analytic philosophy.[102]:3

As with the study of ethics, early analytic philosophy tended to avoid the study of philosophy of religion, largely dismissing (as per the logical positivists view) the subject as part of metaphysics and therefore meaningless.[103] The collapse of logical positivism renewed interest in philosophy of religion, prompting philosophers like William Alston, John Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Merrihew Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Antony Flew not only to introduce new problems, but to re-open classical topics such as the nature of miracles, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, (see existence of God) the rationality of belief in God, concepts of the nature of God, and many more.[104]

Plantinga, Mackie and Flew debated the logical validity of the free will defense as a way to solve the problem of evil.[105] Alston, grappling with the consequences of analytic philosophy of language, worked on the nature of religious language. Adams worked on the relationship of faith and morality.[106] Analytic epistemology and metaphysics has formed the basis for a number of philosophically-sophisticated theistic arguments, like those of the reformed epistemologists like Plantinga.

Analytic philosophy of religion has also been preoccupied with Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well as his interpretation of Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy of religion.[107] Using first-hand remarks (which would later be published in Philosophical Investigations, Culture and Value, and other works), philosophers such as Peter Winch and Norman Malcolm developed what has come to be known as contemplative philosophy, a Wittgensteinian school of thought rooted in the "Swansea tradition" and which includes Wittgensteinians such as Rush Rhees, Peter Winch and D. Z. Phillips, among others. The name "contemplative philosophy" was first coined by D. Z. Phillips in Philosophy's Cool Place, which rests on an interpretation of a passage from Wittgenstein's "Culture and Value."[108] This interpretation was first labeled, "Wittgensteinian Fideism," by Kai Nielsen but those who consider themselves Wittgensteinians in the Swansea tradition have relentlessly and repeatedly rejected this construal as a caricature of Wittgenstein's considered position; this is especially true of D. Z. Phillips.[109] Responding to this interpretation, Kai Nielsen and D.Z. Phillips became two of the most prominent philosophers on Wittgenstein's philosophy of religion.[110]

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ a b Taliaferro, Charles (1 January 2014). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Philosophy of Religion (Winter 2014 ed.).
  2. ^ a b Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Philosophy of Religion."
  3. ^ Evans, C. Stephen (1985). Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith. InterVarsity Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-87784-343-6.
  4. ^ Rowe, Philosophy of Religion, An Introduction, Fourth Edition, 2007, pg. 2.
  5. ^ Bunnin, N, Tsui-James, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons, 2008, p. 453.
  6. ^ Wainwright, WJ., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, Oxford Handbooks Online, 2004, p. 3. "The expression "philosophy of religion" did not come into general use until the nineteenth century, when it was employed to refer to the articulation and criticism of humanity's religious consciousness and its cultural expressions in thought, language, feeling, and practice."
  7. ^ Encyclopedia of Philosophy: History of the philosophy of religion.
  8. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Theology.
  9. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Theology; Relationship of theology to the history of religions and philosophy; Relationship to philosophy.
  10. ^ Aristotle, Professor Barry D. Smith, Crandall University
  11. ^ Yandell, Keith E. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A contemporary introduction, Routledge, 2002, Part II in general
  12. ^ Wainwright, William, "Concepts of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  13. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 179
  14. ^ Meister, Chad. Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge 2009, chapter 3.
  15. ^ see the whole structure of 'Yandell, 2002.'
  16. ^ Yandell, 2002, p. 4.
  17. ^ Yandell, Keith E. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A contemporary introduction, Routledge, 2002, page 86-89.
  18. ^ Yandell, 2002, p. 90.
  19. ^ see e.g. Antony Flew, John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne
  20. ^ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
  21. ^ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  22. ^ Butler, Sean (2011) "Idealism in Yogācāra Buddhism," The Hilltop Review: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at:
  23. ^ Yandell, 2002, p. 101.
  24. ^ Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad (Reviewer) Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India. By Parimal Patil. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Pp. 406.
  25. ^ Yandell, 2002, p. 105.
  26. ^ Yandell, 2002, p. 53-54.
  27. ^ a b Rowe 2007, pp 105
  28. ^ a b c Forrest, Peter, "The Epistemology of Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  29. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 106
  30. ^ Meister 2009, p. 161.
  31. ^ Meister 2009, p. 163.
  32. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 98
  33. ^ E.g. see Benton, Matthew; Hawthorne, John; Rabinowitz, Dani (2018). Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198798705..
  34. ^ Pittard, John. Religious Disagreement, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
  35. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 91
  36. ^ Bishop, John, "Faith", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  37. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 93
  38. ^ Amesbury, Richard, "Fideism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  39. ^ Meister 2009, p. 148.
  40. ^ Meister 2009, p. 150.
  41. ^ Davies, Brian. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 2rd Edition, 1993, p. 9-14.
  42. ^ Davies 1993, p. 17.
  43. ^ a b De Cruz, Helen, "Religion and Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  44. ^ a b Yandell, 2002, p. 39.
  45. ^ Meister 2009, p. 170.
  46. ^ Meister 2009, p. 177.
  47. ^ a b Davies 1993, p. 121.
  48. ^ Meister 2009, p. 176.
  49. ^ a b c d e Gellman, Jerome, "Mysticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  50. ^ Bertrand Russell "Mysticism" From Religion and Science (Oxford University Press, 1961)
  51. ^ a b Rowe 2007, pp 85
  52. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 88
  53. ^ Yandell, 2002, p. 40, 47.
  54. ^ Meister 2009, p. 180.
  55. ^ Rowe, 2007, p. 70
  56. ^ Otto, Rudolf (1996). Alles, Gregory D., ed. Autobiographical and Social Essays. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 30. ISBN 978-3-110-14519-9.
  57. ^ Rowe 2007, pg. 72.
  58. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 73, 78
  59. ^ Meister 2009, p. 171-74.
  60. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 180
  61. ^ Davies 1993, pg. 168.
  62. ^ Davies 1993, pg. 171.
  63. ^ Davies 1993, pg. 174.
  64. ^ Anne Lockyer Jordan; Anne Lockyer Jordan Neil Lockyer Edwin Tate; Neil Lockyer; Edwin Tate (25 June 2004). Philosophy of Religion for A Level OCR Edition. Nelson Thornes. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-7487-8078-5.
  65. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 142
  66. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 143
  67. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 144
  68. ^ Holland, R.F. (1965), "The Miraculous," American Philosophical Quarterly 2:43-51
  69. ^ Davies, 1993, 209.
  70. ^ Meister 2009, p. 191.
  71. ^ a b c Hasker, William and Taliaferro, Charles, "Afterlife", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  72. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 150-151
  73. ^ Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, p. 51.
  74. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 159
  75. ^ Davies 1993, p. 213.
  76. ^ a b c Hasker, William and Taliaferro, Charles, "Afterlife", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL =
  77. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 181
  78. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 182
  79. ^ Hick, John. "On Conflicting Religious Truth-Claims," p. 487.
  80. ^ Meister 2009, p. 28
  81. ^ Barbato, Melanie. Jain Approaches to Plurality: Identity as Dialogue. BRILL 2017, p. 124.
  82. ^ Paul Dundas (2004). Tara Sethia, ed. Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 123-125. ISBN 978-81-208-2036-4.
  83. ^ Kristin Beise Kiblinger. Buddhist Inclusivism: Attitudes Towards Religious Others
  84. ^ a b c d e Taliaferro, Charles, "Philosophy of Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  85. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 185
  86. ^ Hick, John. "On Conflicting Religious Truth-Claims," p. 487
  87. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 186
  88. ^ Meister 2009, p. 35
  89. ^ a b Meister 2009, p. 36
  90. ^ Rowe 2007, pp 184
  91. ^ Meister 2009, p. 15.
  92. ^ Meister 2009, p. 15-16.
  93. ^ Davies, Brian. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 2rd Edition, 1993, p. 2.
  94. ^ Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (2018). Faith and Humility. Oxford: OUP Oxford. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-19-253727-0.
  95. ^ Davies 1993, p. 4
  96. ^ Davies 1993, p. 6-7
  97. ^ Davies 1993, p. 23
  98. ^ Davies 1993, p. 24
  99. ^ Davies 1993, p. 29
  100. ^ Davies 1993, p. 30
  101. ^ Meister 2009, p. 15-18.
  102. ^ Harris, James Franklin (2002). Analytic philosophy of religion. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ISBN 978-1402005305. (432 pages) (volume 3 of Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, ISSN 1568-1556)
  103. ^ (a notable exception is the series of Michael B. Forest's 1934-36 Mind articles involving the Christian doctrine of creation and the rise of modern science).
  104. ^ Peterson, Michael et al. (2003). Reason and Religious Belief
  105. ^ Mackie, John L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
  106. ^ Adams, Robert M. (1987). The Virtue of Faith And Other Essays in Philosophical Theology
  107. ^ Creegan, Charles. (1989). Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard: Religion, Individuality and Philosophical Method
  108. ^ Phillips, D. Z. (1999). Philosophy's Cool Place. Cornell University Press. The quote is from Wittgenstein's Culture and Value (2e): "My ideal is a certain coolness. A temple providing a setting for the passions without meddling with them."
  109. ^ Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Fideism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  110. ^ Nielsen, Kai and D.Z. Phillips. (2005). Wittgensteinian Fideism?

Further reading

  • Al-Nawawi Forty Hadiths and Commentary, by Arabic Virtual Translation Center; (2010) ISBN 978-1-4563-6735-0 (Philosophy of Religion from an Islamic Point of View)
  • The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Philosophy of Religion
  • William L. Rowe, William J. Wainwright, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Third Ed. (Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998)
  • Religious Studies is an international journal for the philosophy of religion. It is available online and in print and has a fully searchable online archive dating back to Issue 1 in 1965. It currently publishes four issues per year.
  • Shokhin, Vladimir K., "The Pioneering Appearances of Philosophy of Religion in Europe: François Para du Phanjas on the Nature of Religion", Open Theology 2015, 1: 97-106. Open Access:
  • Yandell, Keith E. PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A contemporary introduction, Routledge, 2002.

External links

Agnostic theism

Agnostic theism, agnostotheism or agnostitheism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god or gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in.


Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is the opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the belief in any deity.


Apatheism (; a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the attitude of apathy towards the existence or non-existence of god(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system.An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist. The existence of god(s) is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant.Scientist and philosopher Ian von Hegner has argued that apatheism is an alternative to positions such as theism, atheism, and agnosticism, with implications that have been overlooked in modern philosophical discussions. Philosopher Trevor Hedberg has called apatheism "uncharted territory in the philosophy of religion."

Atheist's Wager

The Atheist's Wager, popularised by the philosopher Michael Martin and published in his 1990 book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, is an atheistic response to Pascal's Wager regarding the existence of God.

One version of the Atheist's Wager suggests that since a kind and loving god would reward good deeds – and that if no gods exist, good deeds would still leave a positive legacy – one should live a good life without religion. Another formulation suggests that a god may reward honest disbelief and punish a dishonest belief in the divine.

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips (24 November 1934 – 25 July 2006), known as D. Z. Phillips, Dewi Z, Dizzy, or simply DZ, was a Welsh philosopher. He was a leading proponent of Wittgensteinian philosophy of religion. He had an academic career spanning five decades, and at the time of his death he held the Danforth Chair in Philosophy of religion at Claremont Graduate University, California, and was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Swansea University.

Eschatological verification

Eschatological verification describes a process whereby a proposition can be verified after death. A proposition such as "there is an afterlife" is verifiable if true but not falsifiable if false (if it's false, the individual will not know it's false, because they have no state of being). The term is most commonly used in relation to God and the afterlife, although there may be other propositions - such as moral propositions - which may also be verified after death.

John Hick has expressed the premise as an allegory of a quest to a Celestial City. In this parable, a theist and an atheist are both walking down the same road. The theist believes there is a destination, the atheist believes there is not. If they reach the destination, the theist will have been proven right; however, if there is no destination on an endless road, this can never be verified. This is an attempt to explain how a theist expects some form of life or existence after death and an atheist does not. They both have separate belief systems and live life accordingly, but logically one is right and the other is not. If the theist is right, he will be proven so when he arrives in the afterlife. However, if the atheist is right, they will simply both be dead and nothing will be verified.

This acts as a response to Verificationism. Under Hick's analogy claims about the afterlife are verifiable in principle because the truth becomes clear after death. To some extent it is therefore wrong to claim that religious language cannot be verified because it can (when you're dead).

Index of philosophy of religion articles

This is a list of articles in philosophy of religion.

A Grief Observed

A History of God

A Letter Concerning Toleration

A New Model of the Universe

A Secular Humanist Declaration

A. H. Almaas

A.P. Martinich

Abandonment (existentialism)

Abd al-Karīm ibn Hawāzin al-Qushayri


Abraham Joshua Heschel

Absolute (philosophy)

Absolute atheism

Absolute Infinite


Abu'l Hasan Muhammad Ibn Yusuf al-'Amiri

Abu Sulayman al-Sijistani



Actus purus


Adi Shankara

Adriaan Koerbagh

Afshin Ellian


Age of Enlightenment

Agnostic atheism

Agnostic theism



Ahmad Sirhindi







Albrecht Ritschl

Alice von Hildebrand

All Truth Is God's Truth

Alvin Plantinga

American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly

Amsterdam Declaration

An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism



Analytical Thomism

Ananda Coomaraswamy


Anarchism and Islam



Anders Nygren


Animals in Buddhism

Anselm of Canterbury

Answer to Job

Anthony Kenny

Anthony Thiselton








Anton Kržan

Anton LaVey




Argument from a proper basis

Argument from beauty

Argument from consciousness

Argument from degree

Argument from desire

Argument from free will

Argument from inconsistent revelations

Argument from love

Argument from miracles

Argument from morality

Argument from nonbelief

Argument from poor design

Argument from religious experience


Aristotelian view of a god




Atheist's Wager

Atheist existentialism

Ātman (Buddhism)

Augustine of Hippo

Avadhuta Gita


Avidyā (Buddhism)

Avraham son of Rambam


Ayyavazhi phenomenology

Baptists in the history of separation of church and state


Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna

Beatific vision

Best of all possible worlds

Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival

Bhagavad Gita


Bhumi (Buddhism)

Biblical literalism





Bodhisattva Precepts




Brian Davies (philosopher)

Brights movement

British Humanist Association

Bruno Bauer


Buddhism and evolution

Buddhist philosophy

C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis bibliography

C. Stephen Evans

Cappadocian Fathers

Catholic guilt


Charles Blount (deist)


Chovot ha-Levavot

Christian de Quincey

Christian existentialism

Christian humanism

Christian materialism

Christian philosophy

Christian Realism

Christianity and environmentalism

Christological argument

City of God (book)

Classical theism

Clemens Timpler

Clement of Alexandria

Clerical philosophers


Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion



Contemporary Islamic philosophy

Continuum of Humanist Education

Contra Celsum

Cosmological argument

Cosmology (metaphysics)



Credo ut intelligam

Criticism of Christianity

Criticism of Hinduism

Criticism of Islam

Criticism of Jesus

Criticism of Judaism

Criticism of monotheism

Criticism of religion

Criticism of the Bible

Criticism of the Catholic Church

Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement

Criticism of the Qur'an

Cultural materialism (anthropology)

Cultural materialism (cultural studies)

Curt John Ducasse

Daniel Rynhold

Dariush Shayegan


David ben Merwan al-Mukkamas

David Braine (philosopher)

David Ray Griffin

David Strauss

De Coelesti Hierarchia

De divisione naturae

De Mysteriis Aegyptiorum

Dean Zimmerman


Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism



Derech Hashem

Desire realm




Dharma transmission


Dharmarāja Adhvarin

Diamond Realm

Dietrich von Hildebrand

Dimitrije Mitrinović

Dipolar theism

Direct revelation


Divine apathy

Divine command theory

Divine simplicity




Doomsday argument

Doomsday cult

Doomsday event



Dwight H. Terry Lectureship


E. David Cook

Early Islamic philosophy

Eliminative materialism

Elizabeth Burns

Emergent materialism

Epistemic theory of miracles

Epistle to Yemen


Ernesto Buonaiuti

Ernst Ehrlich

Ernst Troeltsch


Essentially contested concept

Eternal Buddha

Eternal return

Eternal return (Eliade)

Ethica thomistica

Ethical will

Ethics in religion

Étienne Tempier

Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

Euthyphro dilemma

Evolutionary argument against naturalism

Evolutionary Humanism


Existence of God

Extrinsic finality


Faith and rationality

Faith, Science and Understanding

Faraday Institute for Science and Religion

Fate of the unlearned


Fazlur Rahman Malik

Ferdinand Ebner

Fetter (Buddhism)

Fi Zilal al-Qur'an



Five hindrances

Four stages of enlightenment

Fourteen unanswerable questions

Francis Schaeffer

Franciszek Krupiński

Françoise Meltzer

Franz Rosenzweig

Frederick Ferré


French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools

Friedrich Nietzsche and free will

Friedrich von Hügel

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling

Fujiwara Seika


Gary Habermas


George H. Smith

Gifford Lectures

Giles Fraser



God in Buddhism

God Is Not Great

God of the gaps

God, A Guide for the Perplexed

Gödel's ontological proof

Good and necessary consequence

Graham Oppy

Great chain of being

Greek hero cult

Gregory of Nyssa

Guru Nanak Dev

Gustav Glogau

Hajime Tanabe

Han Yong-un

Hans Rookmaaker


Hasidic philosophy

Hayashi Razan

Hayom Yom


Henry Corbin

Herbert McCabe





Hirata Atsutane


Historical materialism

Holy History of Mankind




Hossein Nasr

Hossein Ziai

Huayan school


Human beings in Buddhism

Human extinction


Humanism and Its Aspirations

Humanism in France

Humanism in Germany

Humanist Manifesto

Humanist Manifesto I

Humanist Manifesto II

Humanist Movement

Humanist Society Scotland

Humanistic naturalism

Huston Smith

Ian Ramsey

Ibn al-Nafis

Ibn Arabi



Illtyd Trethowan


Illuminationist philosophy




Incarnational humanism

Incompatible-properties argument

Indefinite monism



Infinite qualitative distinction


Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society

Integral humanism (India)


International League of Humanists

Intrinsic finality

Intuition (knowledge)

Invincible error

Invincible ignorance fallacy


Invisible Pink Unicorn


Irenaean theodicy


Is God Dead?

Islam and democracy

Islamic fundamentalism in Iran

Islamic philosophy

Ivan Aguéli

Ivan Vyshenskyi

J. J. C. Smart

J. P. Moreland


Jakob Guttmann (rabbi)

Jakub of Gostynin

James Gustafson

Jay Newman

Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa


Jean Meslier

Jewish ethics


Jiva Goswami


Johann Friedrich Flatt

Johann Joachim Lange

Johann Nepomuk Oischinger

Johannes Scotus Eriugena

John Calvin

John E. Hare

John Hick

John of Głogów

Joseph de Torre

Joseph Priestley and Dissent

Joseph Runzo

Kalam cosmological argument

Kalpa (aeon)


Kancha Ilaiah

Kang Youwei

Karl Heinrich Heydenreich

Karl Jaspers


Karma in Buddhism


Keith Ward


Kersey Graves

Kitaro Nishida

Klaus Klostermaier

Knight of faith

Kol HaTor


Kumārila Bhaṭṭa

Kurt Almqvist


Lazarus Geiger

Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion

Letter to a Christian Nation

Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever

Lewis's trilemma

Life of Jesus (Hegel)

Likkutei Sichos

Lineage (Buddhism)

Linji school

List of female mystics

List of new religious movements

Logic in Islamic philosophy

Lutheran scholasticism

Macrocosm and microcosm

Madhusūdana Sarasvatī









Martin Luther


Maximus the Confessor

Maya (illusion)

Meera Nanda

Meister Eckhart

Melville Y. Stewart

Merit (Buddhism)

Mesillat Yesharim

Metaphysical naturalism


Methodios Anthrakites

Michael Gottlieb Birckner

Michael Martin (philosopher)

Michael Oakeshott

Michael Ruse

Middle way

Mind's eye


Miracle of the roses

Mircea Eliade

Mircea Eliade bibliography


Monad (Greek philosophy)


Monistic idealism

Morality without religion

Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei

Muhammad ibn Muhammad Tabrizi

Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi

Muhammad Iqbal

Mulla Sadra

Mumbo Jumbo (phrase)

Mystical philosophy of antiquity

Mystical realism

Mystical theology


Myth of Er



National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

National Secular Society

Natural theology

Naturalism (philosophy)

Naturalistic pantheism




Neoplatonism and Christianity

Neutral monism

New Age

New religious movement

New Thought


Nicholas of Kues

Nick Trakakis

Nikolai Lossky



Noble Eightfold Path



Nontheist Friend

Norman Geisler

Numenius of Apamea



Occasion of sin


Odium theologicum

Of Miracles

Olavo de Carvalho

Omega Point



Omnipotence paradox



Omphalos hypothesis

Ontological argument


Opium of the people

Or Adonai

Orchot Tzaddikim

Orlando J. Smith

Osvaldo Lira

Outline of humanism

Outline of theology




Pantheism controversy

Parallelism (philosophy)



Pascal's Wager


Paul Draper (philosopher)

Paul Häberlin

Paul J. Griffiths

Perennial philosophy


Peter Abelard

Peter Geach

Peter Kreeft

Peter Millican

Peter van Inwagen

Phenomenological definition of God

Phenomenology of religion

Phillip H. Wiebe

Philo's view of God


Philosophical Foundations of Marxist-Leninist Atheism

Philosophical theism

Philosophical theology

Philosophy of religion

Philotheus Boehner

Pierre Cally

Plantinga's free will defense

Political theology

Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture

Postmodern Christianity






Preformation theory


Primum movens

Prince Shōtoku

Problem of evil

Problem of evil in Hinduism

Problem of Hell

Problem of why there is anything at all

Process theology

Proof of the Truthful


Protestant work ethic

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite


Pseudo atheism


Psychoanalysis and Religion

Quantum mysticism

Quietism (Christian philosophy)

Quinque viae

R. De Staningtona

Rabia al-Adawiyya

Rabindranath Tagore

Ralph Tyler Flewelling


Rational fideism

Rational mysticism

Rational Response Squad

Real atheism

Reality in Buddhism

Rebirth (Buddhism)

Reformational philosophy

Relationship between religion and science


Religion & Ethics Newsweekly

Religion and abortion

Religion and happiness

Religious communism

Religious democracy

Religious humanism

Religious intellectualism in Iran

Religious interpretation

Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory

Religious law

Religious naturalism

Religious philosophy

Religious skepticism

Religious views on business ethics

Religious views on suicide

Rémi Brague

Renaissance humanism

René Guénon


Richard Carrier

Richard Dawkins

Richard Swinburne


Robert Cummings Neville

Robert Merrihew Adams

Rudolf Otto

Rudolf Seydel

Rule of Three (Wiccan)


Sam Harris (author)



Saṃsāra (Buddhism)

Samuel Maximilian Rieser


Sarah Coakley

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Sathya Sai Baba

Sayyid al-Qimni

Sayyid Qutb

Scandal (theology)

School of Saint Victor

Science and Christian Belief


Secular ethics

Secular humanism

Secular saint

Secular theology


Secularism in the Middle East


Sefer ha-Ikkarim

Sefer ha-Qabbalah

Seiichi Hatano

Self-Indication Assumption Doomsday argument rebuttal

Self-referencing doomsday argument rebuttal



Seth Material

Seven Factors of Enlightenment

Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi


Shem Mishmuel





Societas Perfecta

Søren Kierkegaard



Soul dualism


Spiritual materialism

Spiritual philosophy

Sri Aurobindo

Stephen Mulhall

Stephen R. L. Clark

Strong agnosticism

Submission (2004 film)

Sufi metaphysics

Sufi philosophy


Summa contra Gentiles

Summa Theologica


Supreme Being


Suzuki Shōsan

Syed Ali Abbas Jallapuri


Tage Lindbom

Taha Abdurrahman





Tathagatagarbha doctrine



Teleological argument


Ten Commandments

Ten spiritual realms

Tetrad (Greek philosophy)


The Age of Reason

The Case for God

The End of Faith

The Essence of Christianity

The Freethinker (journal)

The God Delusion

The God Makers

The God Makers II

The Guide for the Perplexed

The Incoherence of the Philosophers

The Necessity of Atheism

The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God

The Primordial Tradition

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

The Teachings of the Mystics

The True Word


Theistic realism


Theodore Drange

Theognostus of Alexandria

Theological aesthetics

Theological determinism

Theological noncognitivism

Theological veto

Theological virtues

Theologico-Political Treatise


Theories of religion

Theosophy (history of philosophy)


Thirtha prabandha

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas and the Sacraments

Thomas Jefferson


Thought of Thomas Aquinas


Three marks of existence

Threefold Training

Time and Eternity (philosophy book)

Tomer Devorah

Trademark argument

Traditionalist School


Transcendence (religion)

Transcendental argument for the existence of God


Triad (Greek philosophy)


True-believer syndrome

Turtles all the way down

Twelve Nidānas

Two truths doctrine

Types of Buddha

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit

Ultimate fate of the universe

Universality (philosophy)

Unmoved mover




Vācaspati Miśra

Varadaraja V. Raman


Victoria Institute


Vincent Miceli



Vipassana movement

Voluntarism (theology)


Walter of St Victor

Wang Chong

War of Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization

Watchmaker analogy

Weak agnosticism

What I Believe

Why I Am Not a Christian

Willem B. Drees

William Alston

William F. Vallicella

William James

William L. Rowe

William Lane Craig

Witness argument

Wolfgang Smith

Womb Realm


Works by Thomas Aquinas

Works of Madhvacharya

Yamazaki Ansai

Yi Hwang

Yunmen Wenyan


Zhu Xi

Zofia Zdybicka


Kathenotheism is a term coined by the philologist Max Müller to mean the worship of one god at a time. It is closely related to henotheism, the worship of one god while not rejecting the existence of other gods. Müller coined the term in reference to the Vedas, where he explained each deity is treated as supreme in turn.

Negative and positive atheism

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.The terms "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" were used by Antony Flew in 1976 and have appeared in George H. Smith's and Michael Martin's writings since 1990.


Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning "all", bene- meaning "good" and volens meaning "willing") is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence. The word is primarily used as a technical term within academic literature on the philosophy of religion, mainly in context of the problem of evil and theodical responses to such. Although even in said contexts the phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes "infinite benevolence".


The Pensées ("Thoughts") is a collection of fragments on theology and philosophy written by 17th-century philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal. Pascal's religious conversion led him into a life of asceticism, and the Pensées was in many ways his life's work. The Pensées represented Pascal's defense of the Christian religion. The concept of "Pascal's Wager" stems from a portion of this work.


Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the diverse claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in strong atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground. The term was invented by Robbie Parrish, a friend of neuroscientist David Eagleman who defined the term in relation to his book of fiction Sum: Forty Tales from the Afterlives.


Post-theism is a variant of nontheism that proposes that the division of theism vs. atheism is obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past. Within nontheism, post-theism can be contrasted with antitheism.

The term appears in Christian liberal theology and Postchristianity.

Frank Hugh Foster in a 1918 lecture announced that modern culture had arrived at a "post-theistic stage" in which humanity has taken possession of the powers of agency and creativity that had formerly been projected upon God.Denys Turner argues that Karl Marx did not choose atheism over theism, but rejected the binary "Feuerbachian" choice altogether, a position which by being post-theistic is at the same time necessarily post-atheistic. For example, at one point Marx argued "there should be less trifling with the label 'atheism,'” as he insisted "religion in itself is without content, it owes its being not to heaven but to the earth, and with the abolition of distorted reality, of which it is the theory, it will collapse of itself."Related ideas include Friedrich Nietzsche's pronouncement that "God is dead" and the transtheism of Paul Tillich or Pema Chödrön.

Religious skepticism

Religious skepticism is a type of skepticism relating to religion. Religious skeptics question religious authority and are not necessarily anti-religious but skeptical of specific or all religious beliefs and/or practices. Socrates was one of the most prominent and first religious skeptics of whom there are records; he questioned the legitimacy of the beliefs of his time in the existence of the Greek gods. Religious skepticism is not the same as atheism or agnosticism and some religious skeptics are deists.


Sentientism is an ethical philosophy that grants degrees of moral consideration to all sentient beings. Sentientism extends humanism by showing compassion for non-human animals as well as potential artificial and alien intelligences. In common with humanism, sentientism rejects supernatural beliefs in favour of critical, evidence-based thinking.Sentientism proposes that sentience, primarily the ability to experience suffering or flourishing, should determine whether we grant moral consideration to an entity. Non-sentient entities do not warrant direct moral consideration because they cannot experience the implications of our decisions.

Sentientist thinking has a long history, from Jeremy Bentham's An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation through to contemporary philosophers such as Richard D. Ryder and Peter Singer.

Sentientism differs from speciesism in that it uses degrees of sentience, rather than species boundaries, to grant degrees of moral consideration.

Sentientism differs from painism in that it acknowledges the full range of experience, not just that of pain, in warranting moral consideration.

Sentientism agrees with animalism that humans are animals so both warrant moral consideration. However, sentientism argues that non-animal sentient beings, such as potential artificial or alien intelligences, would also warrant moral consideration.

Theological veto

The theological veto is the concept in philosophy of religion that philosophy and logic are impious and that God, not reason, is sovereign. This concept is held as true by some theists, especially religious fundamentalists.

The idea is derived from a belief that mankind is depraved, and its intellect is a flawed product of this fallenness. In this view conversion, not reason, is the way to the truth; preaching, not argument, is the way to persuade; and grace, not evidence is the way belief is confirmed. In this view, natural reason is so profoundly hostile to the divine that holding it above faith is tantamount to worshiping a sinful creature as an idol. Even the use of reason on behalf of faith is rejected under the theological veto, as it shows faithlessness. It presupposes by practice that faith can be benefited by reason.


Theopanism (from Greek: Θεός Theos, "God" and πᾶν pan, "all") was first used as a technical term by the Jesuits in elucidating Hinduism.

"[O]ne may distinguish pantheism, which imagines the world as an absolute being ("everything is God"), from theopanism, which conceives of God as the true spiritual reality from which everything emanates: "God becomes everything", necessarily, incessantly, without beginning and without end. Theopanism is (with only a few other dualistic systems) the most common way in which Hindu philosophy conceives God and the world."

Theopanism has also been more broadly stated as inclusive of any theological theory by which God is held equivalent to the Universe. As one author puts it: "In theopanism the meaning given the word God is of an entity that is not separate from the universe. Theopanism includes among its major concepts pantheism and panentheism." The broader statement would also include pandeism.


Transtheism is a term coined by either philosopher Paul Tillich or Indologist Heinrich Zimmer referring to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic, nor atheistic, but is beyond them.

Zimmer applies the term to the theological system of Jainism, which is theistic in the limited sense that the gods exist, but become irrelevant as they are transcended by moksha (that is, a system which is not non-theistic, but in which the gods are not the highest spiritual instance). Zimmer (1953, p. 182) uses the term to describe the position of the Tirthankaras having passed "beyond the godly governors of the natural order".

The term has more recently also been applied to Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta and the Bhakti movement.

Why I Am Not a Christian

Why I Am Not a Christian is an essay by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Originally a talk given 6 March 1927 at Battersea Town Hall, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the National Secular Society, it was published that year as a pamphlet and has been republished several times in English and in translation.

Philosophy of religion
Concepts in religion
Conceptions of God
Existence of God
Religious language
Problem of evil
Philosophersof religion

(by date active)
Related topics

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.