Human Development and the Philosophy of Christianity
This is a special page with information on a two-book series -- a duology, I guess you could call it -- that I'm presently working on. It's my first venture into matters specifically pertaining to Christianity. (All my previous work in the philosophy of religion has concerned more general questions about religion.) I'm motivated by two things: (1) the recognition that my general stance on stage-sensitivity -- the home page has something on this -- has consequences for philosophizing about things Christian, and (2) a desire to contribute to a shift from Christian philosophy to the philosophy of Christianity. Presently Christian philosophers dominate in the philosophical discussion of things Christian. But a sub-field of philosophy devoted to Christianity should be much broader than this. Most obviously, it should have room for criticism of Christian claims as well as their defense. It should also contain at least some attention to the possibility that there are untried ways of being Christian that are intellectually and otherwise superior to any we've seen so far.
My two-volume contribution addresses both of these neglected themes. The first book, focused on criticism, is already out from Oxford University Press. It's called What God Would Have Known: How Human Intellectual and Moral Development Undermines Christian Doctrine. (See here or go to Amazon to purchase.) The second book is well begun, but I have a ways to go yet. In it I'm focused on Christian possibilities that remain open rather than closed. That is to say, the second volume is constructive in its approach to things Christian rather than critical. And it is more broadly focused on Christian practice. Here I ask whether – and if so, how – it would be possible still to be Christian, and to be so in good conscience, even if everyone accepted the conclusion of volume 1. My answer to the first question is Yes, and in answer to the second I set out quite a number of different ways -- some realist, some non-realist -- in which the Yes can be substantiated. I do all this not as a Christian but with the wish to convey a full and fair understanding of Christianity’s prospects and in the hope of a fuller and fairer future, which it seems to me the positive evolution of Christianity might do much to foster. Thus although I do not myself accept any of the positions constructed here, I will try to make them as strong as they can be, given all the resources available – including some, the gift of stage-sensitivity, that Christian thinkers have not yet explored.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here is a related piece written for OUPblog.
This is a special page with information on a two-book series -- a duology, I guess you could call it -- that I'm presently working on. It's my first venture into matters specifically pertaining to Christianity. (All my previous work in the philosophy of religion has concerned more general questions about religion.) I'm motivated by two things: (1) the recognition that my general stance on stage-sensitivity -- the home page has something on this -- has consequences for philosophizing about things Christian, and (2) a desire to contribute to a shift from Christian philosophy to the philosophy of Christianity. Presently Christian philosophers dominate in the philosophical discussion of things Christian. But a sub-field of philosophy devoted to Christianity should be much broader than this. Most obviously, it should have room for criticism of Christian claims as well as their defense. It should also contain at least some attention to the possibility that there are untried ways of being Christian that are intellectually and otherwise superior to any we've seen so far.
My two-volume contribution addresses both of these neglected themes. The first book, focused on criticism, is already out from Oxford University Press. It's called What God Would Have Known: How Human Intellectual and Moral Development Undermines Christian Doctrine. (See here or go to Amazon to purchase.) The second book is well begun, but I have a ways to go yet. In it I'm focused on Christian possibilities that remain open rather than closed. That is to say, the second volume is constructive in its approach to things Christian rather than critical. And it is more broadly focused on Christian practice. Here I ask whether – and if so, how – it would be possible still to be Christian, and to be so in good conscience, even if everyone accepted the conclusion of volume 1. My answer to the first question is Yes, and in answer to the second I set out quite a number of different ways -- some realist, some non-realist -- in which the Yes can be substantiated. I do all this not as a Christian but with the wish to convey a full and fair understanding of Christianity’s prospects and in the hope of a fuller and fairer future, which it seems to me the positive evolution of Christianity might do much to foster. Thus although I do not myself accept any of the positions constructed here, I will try to make them as strong as they can be, given all the resources available – including some, the gift of stage-sensitivity, that Christian thinkers have not yet explored.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here is a related piece written for OUPblog.