Skip to main content

Review of J.L. Schellenberg's The Will to Imagine: A Justification of Skeptical Religion

James A. Keller (Wofford College) reviews the book for NDPR here.


exapologist said…
(whoops: I accidentally deleted someone's comment -- Sorry about that! In any case, here's the content of the comment, cut-n-pasted from the copy in my gmail inbox. I'll reply in the post that follows it)

Steve Schuler said...

"I have come upon your blog via some comments you have made at Sarah Schoonmaker's blog in the past. Thanks for providing the link in this post. While I probably will not be buying the book the review was very good and provided a very nice introduction to Schellenberg's thinking. At various moments I have sometimes thought of myself as a "religious skeptic" and it's kind of nice to see someone has developed a substantial body of thought involving an approach to religion that seems somewhat consistent with my own amorphous notions about religion and spirituallity.

Thanks for maintaining your blog. I previously listened to the BBC segment on Spinoza that you provided a link to, but failed to leave a thank you note at that time. I am sure I will continue to check in with you.

I presume by your screen name that you were formerly a Christain apologist. Have you written about the process of your transition from "apologist" to "ex-apologist"? If so, can you direct me to where I might be able to read about that transition?

Thanks Again!

exapologist said…
Hi, Steve.

Thanks for the kind words!

Well, I was never a professional apologist (such as an employee of Campus Crusade for Christ, like William Lane Craig). Rather, I was among the current horde of Christians who got into philosophy via Christian apologetics, and then went on to a PhD program with the aim of gaining employment as a philosophy professor to be a "light in the darkness" on campus, and to "change the world of ideas" for the cause of Christ by publishing in philosophy of religion (and then to put the ideas in "popular" form by writing *more* apologetics books). However, I lost my faith about halfway through grad school. Which brings me to your second question.

I wrote a blog post about my de-conversion shortly after it happened (in late 2006) over at Debunking Christianity. Here is the link.


Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

Andrew Moon's New Paper on Recent Work in Reformed Epistemology... the latest issue of Philosophy Compass. Here's the abstract:
Reformed epistemology, roughly, is the thesis that religious belief can be rational without argument. After providing some background, I present Plantinga's defense of reformed epistemology and its influence on religious debunking arguments. I then discuss three objections to Plantinga's arguments that arise from the following topics: skeptical theism, cognitive science of religion, and basicality. I then show how reformed epistemology has recently been undergirded by a number of epistemological theories, including phenomenal conservatism and virtue epistemology. I end by noting that a good objection to reformed epistemology must criticize either a substantive epistemological theory or the application of that theory to religious belief; I also show that the famous Great Pumpkin Objection is an example of the former. And if a copy should make its way to my inbox...

UPDATE: Thanks!