religion importance essay

Essays About Religion: Top 5 Examples and 7 Writing Prompts

Essays about religion include delicate issues and tricky subtopics. See our top essay examples and prompts to guide you in your essay writing.

With over 4,000 religions worldwide, it’s no wonder religion influences everything. It involves faith, lessons on humanity, spirituality, and moral values that span thousands of years. For some, it’s both a belief and a cultural system. As it often clashes with science, laws, and modern philosophies, it’s also a hot debate topic. Religion is a broad subject encompassing various elements of life, so you may find it a challenging topic to write an essay about it.

1. Wisdom and Longing in Islam’s Religion by Anonymous on Ivypanda.com

2. consequences of following religion blindly essay by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 3. religion: christians’ belief in god by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 4. mecca’s influence on today’s religion essay by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 5. religion: how buddhism views the world by anonymous on ivypanda.com , 1. the importance of religion, 2. pros and cons of having a religion, 3. religions across the world, 4. religion and its influence on laws, 5. religion: then and now, 6. religion vs. science, 7. my religion.

“Portraying Muslims as radical religious fanatics who deny other religions and violently fight dissent has nothing to do with true Islamic ideology. The knowledge that is presented in Islam and used by Muslims to build their worldview system is exploited in a misinterpreted form. This is transforming the perception of Islam around the world as a radical religious system that supports intolerance and conflicts.”

The author discusses their opinion on how Islam becomes involved with violence or terrorism in the Islamic states. Throughout the essay, the writer mentions the massive difference between Islam’s central teachings and the terrorist groups’ dogma. The piece also includes a list of groups, their disobediences, and punishments.

This essay looks at how these brutalities have nothing to do with Islam’s fundamental ideologies. However, the context of Islam’s creeds is distorted by rebel groups like The Afghan mujahideen, Jihadis, and Al-Qa’ida. Furthermore, their activities push dangerous narratives that others use to make generalized assumptions about the entire religion. These misleading generalizations lead to misunderstandings amongst other communities, particularly in the western world. However, the truth is that these terrorist groups are violating Islamic doctrine.

“Following religion blindly can hinder one’s self-actualization and interfere with self-development due to numerous constraints and restrictions… Blind adherence to religion is a factor that does not allow receiving flexible education and adapting knowledge to different areas.”

The author discusses the effects of blindly following a religion and mentions that it can lead to difficulties in self-development and the inability to live independently. These limitations affect a person’s opportunity to grow and discover oneself. Movies like “ The Da Vinci Code ” show how fanatical devotion influences perception and creates constant doubt.

“…there are many religions through which various cultures attain their spiritual and moral bearings to bring themselves closer to a higher power (deity). Different religions are differentiated in terms of beliefs, customs, and purpose and are similar in one way or the other.”

The author discusses how religion affects its followers’ spiritual and moral values and mentions how deities work in mysterious ways. The essay includes situations that show how these supreme beings test their followers’ faith through various life challenges. Overall, the writer believes that when people fully believe in God, they can be stronger and more capable of coping with the difficulties they may encounter.

“Mecca represents a holy ground that the majority of the Muslims visit; and is only supposed to be visited by Muslims. The popularity of Mecca has increased the scope of its effects, showing that it has an influence on tourism, the financial aspects of the region and lastly religion today.”

The essay delves into Mecca’s contributions to Saudi Arabia’s tourism and religion. It mentions tourism rates peaking during Hajj, a 5-day Muslim pilgrimage, and visitors’ sense of spiritual relief and peace after the voyage. Aside from its tremendous touristic benefits, it also brings people together to worship Allah. You can also check out these essays about values and articles about beliefs .

“Buddhism is seen as one of the most popular and widespread religions on the earth the reason of its pragmatic and attractive philosophies which are so appealing for people of the most diversified backgrounds and ways of thinking .”

To help readers understand the topic, the author explains Buddhism’s worldviews and how Siddhatta Gotama established the religion that’s now one of the most recognized on Earth. It includes teachings about the gift of life, novel thinking, and philosophies based on his observations. Conclusively, the author believes that Buddhism deals with the world as Gotama sees it.

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays .

7 Prompts on Essays About Religion

Essays About Religion: The importance of religion

Religion’s importance is embedded in an individual or group’s interpretation of it. They hold on to their faith for various reasons, such as having an idea of the real meaning of life and offering them a purpose to exist. Use this prompt to identify and explain what makes religion a necessity. Make your essay interesting by adding real-life stories of how faith changed someone’s life.

Although religion offers benefits such as positivity and a sense of structure, there are also disadvantages that come with it. Discuss what’s considered healthy and destructive when people follow their religion’s gospels and why. You can also connect it to current issues. Include any personal experience you have.

Religion’s prevalence exhibits how it can significantly affect one’s daily living. Use this prompt to discuss how religions across the world differ from one another when it comes to beliefs and if traditions or customs influence them. It’s essential to use relevant statistical data or surveys in this prompt to support your claims and encourage your readers to trust your piece.

There are various ways religion affects countries’ laws as they adhere to moral and often humanitarian values. Identify each and discuss how faith takes part in a nation’s decision-making regarding pressing matters. You can focus on one religion in a specific location to let the readers concentrate on the case. A good example is the latest abortion issue in the US, the overturning of “Wade vs. Roe.” Include people’s mixed reactions to this subject and their justifications.

In this essay, talk about how the most widespread religions’ principles or rituals changed over time. Then, expound on what inspired these changes. Add the religion’s history, its current situation in the country, and its old and new beliefs. Elaborate on how its members clash over these old and new principles. Conclude by sharing your opinion on whether the changes are beneficial or not.

There’s a never-ending debate between religion and science. List the most controversial arguments in your essay and add which side you support and why. Then, open discourse about how these groups can avoid quarreling. You can also discuss instances when religion and science agreed or worked together to achieve great results.

Use this prompt if you’re a part of a particular religion. Even if you don’t believe in faith, you can still take this prompt and pick a church you’ll consider joining. Share your personal experiences about your religion. Add how you became a follower, the beliefs that helped you through tough times, and why you’re staying as an active member in it. You can also speak about miraculous events that strengthen your faith. Or you can include teachings that you disagree with and think needs to be changed or updated.

For help with your essay, check out our top essay writing tips !

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Religious Beliefs — The Importance of a Religion to Humanity

The Importance of Religion to Humanity

Categories: Religious Beliefs Religious Tolerance

About this sample

Words: 1290 |

Published: Aug 16, 2019

Words: 1290 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Why is religion important? (essay)

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 921 words

8 pages / 3519 words

3 pages / 1452 words

4 pages / 1685 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

The Importance of Religion to Humanity Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Religious Beliefs

We all encounter different situations where we build up negative issues and feel the need to clear the clutter out in order to grow. For that, we all need some help from the people who surround us. This clearing process is what [...]

Pegan, Danielle. 'The Role of Churches in African American Communities: Attitudes Towards Violence and Social Control.' PhD diss., Rutgers University, 2016.Brauer, Simon. 'Is There Really a Decline in American Religious [...]

Keller, H. (n.d.). Helen Keller Quotes. BrainyQuote. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Edles, Laura Desfor and Scott Appelrouth. 2015. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Edition 3. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.Nelson, Robert H. 2012. 'Rethinking Church and State: The Case of [...]

The Beat Generation has always been associated, and rightfully so, with themes connected to sexuality. Beat writers were, and still are, famous for advocating sexual liberation and free love, being open about their homosexuality [...]

Throughout history, mankind has sought answers to the fundamental questions of existence. Who are we? Where did we come from? What is our purpose? These questions have given rise to a myriad of religions and belief systems, each [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

illustration of man with religious cross

The big idea: do we still need religion?

In a world of scientific miracles, what does faith have to offer us?

I n 2018, archaeologists moving bodies for reburial from a 19th-century cemetery in Birmingham to make way for the new HS2 station were puzzled to find several that had plates on their laps. Then someone remembered a curious custom from the nearby Welsh Marches – that of the village “sin-eater”. A plate of bread and salt would be placed on the deceased’s lap while they were lying in repose. Just before the coffin was closed and the funeral cortege set off for the church, the village sin-eater arrived, ate the bread and was given some coins and a glass of ale for their trouble. The belief was that the deceased’s sins were absorbed by the salt and transferred into the bread, and then into the sin-eater.

Sin-eaters were usually elderly and destitute, and glad to have the money – not to mention the free food and drink. The price they paid was to be shunned by their community because of their macabre associations. The last known sin-eater was Richard Munslow, who died aged 73 in 1906. Sin-eating reminds us that, more than anything else, even the most staid of religions – in this case, Anglicanism – can be associated with surprisingly curious beliefs and rituals.

Perhaps because of this, it has often been claimed that religious belief arises from ignorance and superstition. If that were the case, you might expect religion to gradually fade away as societies became better educated and more scientifically oriented.

There are at least two reasons, however, why religions persist. One is the fact that, on average, religious people are generally happier, healthier and live longer. For better or for worse, they also have easier deaths when the time comes. The other is that religious people are more likely to feel that they belong to a community. In a survey I ran, those who reported attending religious services were depressed less frequently, felt their lives were more worthwhile, were more engaged with their local community, and felt greater trust towards others. These enormous benefits mean not only that religion has enduring appeal, but that religious practices make you “fit” in the evolutionary sense – and thus they tend to stick around.

Part of the reason people are attracted to religion is that its rituals – the standing, sitting and kneeling in unison, the singing, the listening to emotionally rousing sermons – trigger the brain’s endorphin system. This is the mechanism that underpins social bonding in all primates, including humans. Like opiates, endorphins produce a sense of bliss bordering on ecstasy, calmness and warmth, relaxation and trust, while elevating pain thresholds. In addition to these hedonic benefits, endorphins trigger the release of natural killer cells (part of the body’s immune system).

Endorphins also underpin the bonding of friendships and, through that, allow us to create supportive groups of like-minded individuals. This effect seems to be especially strong in the context of rituals, as has been shown experimentally in religious services in the UK and Brazil. It seems, therefore, that religions evolved to reinforce a sense of community cohesion, something that’s extremely important to our wellbeing and survival.

Our natural community size – the size of our personal social network, the number of friends we have on Facebook – is part of a relationship between group size and brain size in primates. Each species has a characteristic group size determined by the size of its brain. Ours is about 150 . Not only is this the average size of personal social networks (the number of extended family and friends with whom you have meaningful relationships), but it also turns out to be the optimal size for religious congregations. If a congregation is smaller than about 100, it puts a heavy burden on the membership; if it is above about 200, it becomes increasingly prone to divisiveness. This seems to explain why big religions are so susceptible to fragmentation – constantly throwing up small sects (typically of a few hundred people at most) built round a charismatic leader whose wayward beliefs the hierarchy desperately tries to contain.

Social bonding is important, of course, to many species. But there’s an aspect of religion that seems to be peculiarly human. Being able to engage in religious discussion – and hence explain the significance of the rituals and why you should take part – depends on the kinds of mind-reading, or “mentalising”, skills that play a crucial role in managing our everyday relationships. These are the skills that allow us to understand what someone else is thinking, to grasp their intentions. They allow us to utter sentences such as, “I know that you realise that Freddie believes that …”

To be able to do this, I have to be able to step back from the immediacy of the physical world so as to imagine the possibility that you might or might not think this, that Freddie might or might not intend whatever you thought he did, and even whether the person Freddie had in mind did or did not think what Freddie thought they did. Apes can do the first two steps in this chain, but that’s the limit. For humans, it comes easily, bringing with it an ability to imagine parallel worlds inhabited by invisible beings. It’s a short step from there to religious ideas, which in turn lead to better bonding, which makes you more likely to survive. Survival means your superior mentalising skills will be passed on to a new generation, equally adept at religious thinking; a penchant for religion is therefore part of our genetic inheritance.

But that’s not all. The same cognitive abilities that give us religion also allow us to ask why the world has to be the way it is (giving us science) and to imagine entirely fictional worlds (giving us literature). Thus, you could no more have a world where religion was cast aside as superstition than you could have one without science or stories. And that would be a very different world indeed.

Robin Dunbar is emeritus professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Oxford and author of How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures.

Essay on Importance of Religion | Purpose, Role & Importance in Life

Essay on Religions | Meaning, Purpose & Importance of Religion in Life

It simply means a set of beliefs and rituals that people hold sacred, which in most cases is the belief in some form of higher power or powers. In a sense, it is a very personal belief system. Religion is important because it serves as a moral guide for how people are expected to act in their world. For some, it provides a sense of peace and comfort. For others, it can provide a sense of purpose in life.

Major Religions of World

There are so many religions in the world, it would be hard to cover just five of those religions. Christianity is the largest religion with over 2 billion followers all over the world.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world with around 1.5 billion followers today, which originated from middle-east. Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world with over 900 million followers. It originated from India and Nepal and it has some flexibility in its beliefs. Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the world, with over 500 million followers around the globe. It originated from middle-east and China.

>>>>>>>> Also Read: Essay on Charity Begins at Home

Judaism is the fifth largest religion in the world with over 14 million followers around the globe. It originated from middle-east and Africa. Jainism is the major religion in India and has around 4 million followers all over the world. It originated from India. Baha’i is the major religion in Iran with 2 million followers around the world. It originated from Israel and Syria. Sikhism is the major religion in India with 23 million followers all over the world. It originated from Middle East.

Founders of Religions:

There is no single founder of the major world religions. Most of them evolved over centuries. However, founders like Gautam Buddha, Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad are the major founders of three major world religions Buddhism, Christianity and Islam respectively.

Importance of Religions in Life

Religion provides a sense of community / belonging to something greater than ourselves. Many people have the need to be part of something bigger, and religion provides that. Belonging to a group of like-minded believers gives people a sense of purpose and fulfillment.
Religion provides a sense of identity. In the face of ever-changing trends and fads, religion gives people a sense of belonging to something more timeless and constant—a bond that transcends time.
Religion can unite people in service towards a common good. Whether it is in the form of relief efforts during times of natural disasters, or fighting for social justice, people’s ability to work together on shared challenges is strengthened when there is a common belief system to unite them.
Religion brings hope, comfort and peace during difficult times. Many people have turned to religion when faced with a terminal illness or a loved one is taken away from them through death. In those moments, it shines as a beacon of hope and provides inspiration.
It is a source of guidance and provides lessons on how to live. Many religions provide practical advice for individuals on how to lead a moral life. We can all learn from each other, and religion provides a baseline for what is right and wrong.
It gives a structure / a set of rules for how to live life. Having a religion provides a framework on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, as well as how to answer the difficult questions of the universe, such as “What happens after I die?”
Religion can be a source of comfort for those who are grieving. Many people rely on their faith in times of crisis, when there seems to be no explanation for what is happening around them. Offering emotional support and comfort, religion can provide solace to those who may be confused or uncertain.

Religions Spread Peace & Love

All religions basically preach the message of love, peace and compassion. They provide the best way for humanity to find true happiness and believe that all human beings are equal. We all have been made from one essence and we must learn to live together as a collective whole

Role of Religion in Modern World

Today, many people are abandoning religion because they do not believe in the existence of God. They are thus creating their own path without religious guidance, which can be dangerous. People have become increasingly self-centered, and are unable to look beyond their own needs without some form of spirituality.

Religion still plays a very important part as it affects people’s thinking and concerns as well as defines and ratifies their behavior and morals. It also brings unity amongst the people of a particular faith and guides them to be good human beings as well as to help others in need.

>>>>>>> Read Also: Essay on Beggars

Religion helps make people connect to their inner-self and also look beyond. It is a source of hope for many, particularly in times of crisis. It brings us together to fight for a common cause and motivates us to be compassionate towards others. It is an important part of our life that shouldn’t be ignored or overlooked, for our own good.

Reader Interactions

Essay Samples on Religion

Composing your student essay about religion, it’s essential to research your subject first and avoid controversial subjects. The trick is to provide a clear structure that will focus on theological aspects of things. When you strive to compare different religions, do not write in a biased tone and work on your compare-and-contrast essay. The body parts of your religion essay must start with a good topic sentence as you address a particular concept or the roots of some religious notions. It’s always good if you can find reliable sources to support the facts. If you are not sure about some source or an idea that must be explored, you can either talk to an academic advisor or focus on a good religion essay example that we have prepared for you. These will help you get a basic idea of how such essays must be written. See the introduction part in every essay sample provided and don’t forget to stay respectful as you work on the differences and similarities. Check your grading rubric requirements twice. Regarding a good thesis statement, religious essays should only pose assumptions or compose specific claims that are supported with another sentence to avoid misreading or confusion.

Why Is Freedom of Religion Important

Freedom of religion stands as one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic and pluralistic society. It safeguards an individual's right to practice their chosen faith without fear of discrimination or persecution. This essay delves into the resons why freedom of religion is important, exploring...

Religious Tolerance

Who is God in Your Life: Personal Beliefs and Spiritual Connections

The concept of God holds profound significance across cultures and belief systems, shaping individuals' values, perspectives, and sense of purpose. So who is God in your life? This essay delves into the diverse ways people perceive God in their lives, whether through religious traditions, personal...

Religious Beliefs

Should Religion Be Taught in Schools

Should religion be taught in schools? This question is a topic that evokes discussions about cultural diversity, freedom of religion, and the role of education in shaping students' worldviews. Advocates argue that including religion in the curriculum can foster understanding, promote tolerance, and provide students...

How Does Religion Affect Your Life

How does religion affect your life? Religion is a deeply personal and influential aspect of human experience, shaping beliefs, values, behaviors, and perspectives. The impact of religion extends beyond mere rituals; it permeates various dimensions of life. This essay explores the intricate ways in which...

How Are Religion and Culture Connected in Various Ways

The intricate relationship between religion and culture is a subject of immense significance, shaping the values, behaviors, and traditions of societies worldwide. While religion and culture are distinct concepts, they are profoundly interconnected, often influencing and informing one another. This essay delves into how religion...

Culture and Communication

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

100% unique papers
3 hrs deadline option

Buddhism and Hinduism: Exploring Similarities and Differences

Buddhism and Hinduism, two of the world's most ancient and complex religions, share both commonalities and distinctions that have shaped the spiritual and cultural landscapes of Asia. This essay delves into Buddhism and Hinduism and the core similarities and differences between these two belief systems,...

Death is a Passage Beyond Life

Introduction In virtually every culture and religion around the world, death is not regarded as an end, but as a passage to a different form of existence. This belief, deeply rooted in human history and psyche, has shaped rituals, philosophies, and the way we perceive...

Why Should We Respect Our Parents: Exploring Islamic Arguments

What islam says about why should we respect our parents? In this essay I want to emphasize that Allah is telling us to treat our parents kindly and to make effort in pleasing them. He says that our mother most deserves our respect and service,...

Parent-Child Relationship

Respect Your Parents and Take Care of Your Children: Ephesians 6:1-9

I chose the following passage Ephesians 6:1-9. The main reason that I chose this passage was because the other passages had already been taken. Now after researching this passage I discovered that there was more than meets the eye and I want to learn how...

The Importance of Respect and Obedience to Our Parents in Islam

DedicationI dedicate this research to God Almighty my creator, my strong pillar, my source of inspiration, wisdom, knowledge and understanding. He has been the source of my strength throughout this research and on His wings only have I soared. I also dedicate this work to...

Respect for Life: the Issue of Death Penalty in Catholic Teachings

An essential principle of a human rights is that each and every human being has an innate dignity that must be respected. Respect for one's human dignity is the original human right from which other human being had as a gift from our almighty God....

Catholic Church
Death Penalty

What Does Respect Mean to You: Christian Explanation

A few days ago a friend of mine asked 'what does respect mean to you?' Later this question inspired me to write this essay about the meaning of respect from christian believer's point of view. Paradise is something that many people think they can...

Biblical Worldview
Christian Worldview

Implementing the Four Noble Truths in Everyday Life

Introduction One of the fundamental doctrines of Buddhism set forth by Buddha himself are the Four Noble Truths. These contain the very essence of the Buddha's pragmatic teachings. The Buddha is known to attain enlightenment only after the realization of these four truths during his...

Euthanasia and the Catholic Church in Australia

An ethical issue is a problem or dilemma that involves a person having to decide whether or not it is morally right or wrong. Euthanasia is a clear example of an ethical issue currently present in Australia. Euthanasia is a process whereby a person who...

Assisted Suicide

Islamic Traditions and Practices: A Focus on Asian Muslims

Asia is home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. Muslim population accounts for approximately 62% of the total population of Asia. Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh are Muslim-majority countries of Asia. As Muslims have different cultures, values, and histories, their...

The Divine Love: Understanding God's Love for Humanity

There is a multitude of attributes of God, what He is and that any human being can also become. Among these countless attributes or characteristics, we have love. A 'simple' characteristic present in some way in the life of all humanity, from the rich to...

Image of God

Comparison of Islamic Religious Texts: the Quran and Hadith

The Quran is the most important text in the Islamic faith, believed to be the word of God communicated to the prophet Muhammad who spoke to his followers, and what he said was written down in the Quran years after his death. The Hadith is...

Religious texts

The Virtue and Significance of the Quran: Exploring its Divine Revelation, Recitation, and Impact on the Muslim Community

The Quran is defined as the miraculous word of God, devoted to its recitation, the house of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by revelation by Jibril, peace be upon him, and transmitted to us in frequency. It should be noted that the Quran came down in...

Human Experience of Illness and the Key Role of the Environment

The key goal of the healthcare facility is to offer a environment where the sick will be at ease and to enable their body to regenerate. There are three principles for a healthy environment: seen, unseen, and storied environments. These ideas give us a deeper...

The Trustworthiness of the Bible: Exploration of Its Foundations

The Bible, a collection of sacred texts revered by millions around the world, has endured for centuries as a source of moral guidance, spiritual enlightenment, and historical insight. Its trustworthiness stems from a multifaceted examination of its historical, literary, and spiritual foundations, which collectively affirm...

Personal Experience

Exploring of the Five Meanings of Science of the Quran

Sciences of the Quran are each science that is intended to serve the Holy Quran and attempt to investigate its privileged insights and uncover its puzzles, for example, the exploration in the Quranic disclosure and Quranic contents, the gathering and grouping of the Quran, the...

Exploring Invaluable Role of Jesus Christ for the World

Jesus Christ is one of the most well known historical figures that could be considered heroic and relatively important to the development of Western Civilization. The existence of Jesus and the eternal legacy he left after he sacrificed himself was one that dramatically influenced the...

Historical Figures
Influence of Christianity
Jesus Christ

Is Jesus a Myth: One of the World’s Most Controversial Figures

It would be hard to find a person in history that has been met with so much controversy than Jesus of Nazareth. According to those who wrote the New Testament, Jesus is God, who was born of a virgin, who lived a sinless life, was...

World History

Why Jesus Is a Hero: an Example of Love and Forgiveness

Is Jesus a hero or not? The meaning of a hero is someone who shows bravery, courage, determination, justice and more. A hero doesn’t need to save the world for people to say that is what a hero is, like Jesus, he reached out to...

Influential Person

The Life and Achievemnts of Muhammad - a Founder of Islam

I chose Muhammad because he did a lot from the day he was born till the day he died. One of the many things that Muhammad did was when Muhammad founded Islam and made it the way it is now. Muhammad was born in Mecca,...

Unveiling Jesus as the Heroic Figure of True Faith and Love

A hero is someone who gives themselves, often putting their own life at great risk, for the greater good of others . A hero shows courage and is determined and dedicated to helping others in need by showing selflessness and sacrifice for the good of...

Jesus as the Greatest Hero: Being Gifted With Godlike DNA

A hero is a person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. Jesus shown these quality’s in different bible readings. Jesus was not only a hero that did miracles to heal people, he was a hero that sacrificed his own life...

Personal Reflections: Three Lessons I Have Learnt From Hosea's Story

David was chosen to be king at a young age when he was only a shepherd, but wasn’t the king until he was 30 years old, David had been working for king Saul and throughout that time he had been taken to court by king...

The Menace of Terrorism Around the World: Emerging Threats and Issues

The menace of terrorism has been increasing over the years though there have been several efforts to counter it. The evils of terrorism have become widespread, and the world has become too familiar to them. There has been a lot of debate on the definition...

Religious Conflict
Social Problems

Understanding Islam: Beliefs, Practices, and History

What is Islam? What do they believe in? Who are they? Well continue reading and you will find out a lot about this religion. Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion teaching that there is only one God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God....

Five Pillars of Islam

The Unique World of Buddhism: Its Origins, Beliefs, and Practices

The World is today is unique, religion being a huge part of that uniqueness. The religions shaped many of the well- known religions today. There are a lot of well-known religions today adapted some of practices of many older religions that today depending on the...

Submission to Allah: The Core Concept of Islam

The concept at the core of Islam is the intention that a Muslim follows the will of Allah as closely as possible in hopes that each moment of each day is to be lived in an attitude of complete submission to Him. Allah’s greatest revelation,...

The Increased Violence in New Terrorism: What Is Going On

The 1990s recalls a series of extremist acts that ushered a new and more violent form of terrorism. Propelled by religious motivations, decentralized organization, and technological advancement, the new terrorism distinguished itself from old terrorism with its inclination to indiscriminate killing and mass casualties. Rapoport’s...

The Sacred Mystery of Plants in Eastern Religion Cultures

Sacred plants are specific plants those are usually devoted to gods and goddess. The human relation with sacred plant stands basically on religion which is considered with Hindu, Buddhist and Jain culture. During the ancient period, the worship of sacred plants is most of the...

Understanding Islam: The Complete Submission to the Will of God

Religion is often a fundamental part of one’s identity. The word religion originates from a Latin word meaning “to tie or bind together.” As new and modern religions continue to develop, religion defines as “an organized system of beliefs and rituals centring on a spiritual...

Difference Between Islam and Christianity: Perspectives on Racism

Islam and Christianity are two of the largest religions in the world, with billions of followers combined. While there are significant difference between islam and christianity in this essay we will also analyse similarities between islam and christianity. For this paper we have interviewed several...

Postulates and Principles of Islamic Moral Economic System

In this paper we will take a short review of main principles and postulates, its subsequent objectives of the Islamic moral economic system. Tawhid or the Unity of God is the fundamental principle of IME. It refers to the human beings being equal before the...

Economic systems

Muhammad and the Birth of Islam: Unraveling the History and Teachings

Chapter 10 of Islam of “Living Religions” by Mary Fisher talks about how Islam is viewed by society and how Islam came about. Reading this chapter from the point of view of the author who is not Muslim made me feel like she was with...

History of Islam

The Journey to Nirvana: The Teachings and Beliefs of Buddhism

Buddhism is among the world's biggest religions, with origins in India dating back 2,500 years. Buddhists think that human existence is full of misery, believing the way to obtain happiness, or nirvana, is via meditation, spiritual and physical effort, and moral behavior. Buddhists believe life...

Gautama and the Middle Way: The Birth of Buddhism

Although we think of Buddhism as being created by Buddha, Gautama a young prince, was the creator and he is now referred to as Buddha, also known as the enlightened one. Since Gautama was a prince that meant that his father was a king and...

The Intersection of Religion and Abortion: A Comparative Analysis

Abortion has been a hot topic for several years. People are very opinionated about the case and there's an ethical side to the subject. The abortion debate asks whether it may be morally right to terminate a pregnancy before normal childbirth. Some people believe that...

Abortion Debate

Buddhism in Asia: A Cultural and Historical Perspective

The story of the life of Gautama Buddha According to the legend the person now commonly known as the Buddha was a prince named Siddhartha Gautama. His father, Suddhodana Gautama, was the ruler of the Shakya clan. Siddhartha’s birth was attended by many unusual events....

Zen Buddhism

From India to China: The Spread of Buddhism along the Silk Road

Introduction The silk road spread religions, philosophies, education, goods, and people. The people who embarked for a journey on the silk road were monks from India. India, during the iron age, between the fourth and sixth centuries, began urbanization and in this process, the influence...

Exploring Buddhism at a Traditional Mon Buddhist Dharma Session

Introduction Sunday, February 16th at two-thirty, I visited the Mon Buddhist Monastery Community in Akron Ohio. This was a traditional Mon Buddhist Dharma session. I was very pleased by the turnout of the session and was able to grasp a better understanding of the Buddhism...

The Rise and Spread of Islam: History and Impact

Introduction Islam is probably the most youthful religion and has the biggest followers in the world and is predominant in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia (Hopfe and Woodward 330). Islam is a significant religion in the world and has in excess of billion followers...

The Dichotomy of Annihilationism and Non-Annihilationism in Buddhism

Introduction Buddhism can be split into two distinct schools of thought: annihilationism and eternal rebirth. The argument that the state of nirvana is achieved through the blowing out of what fuels one’s self is the one generally accepted by most Buddhists and scholars. The minority...

Islam: The Role of Gender, Storytelling, and Conflict

Introduction: The emergence of the Muslim minority in Western nations has spurred discussion over which Muslim behaviors should be accepted, with many people considering certain customs a rejection. In Western countries, societies based on the Islamic belief system have wrestled with gender roles, the importance...

The Ethical Code of Islam: A Comprehensive Overview

Introduction: In Islam, there is a strict ethical code that must be followed in order to abide by Allah. This code is highlighted in the Koran and is practiced through traditions, actions, clothing, and food consumption. Furthermore, every Muslim is expected to adhere to the...

Religion and Abortion: Understanding the Pro-Life Movement

Introduction Death sentences, guns, religion, and abortion are among the top debated subjects in conversations. These topics are discussed frequently, especially if it’s a hot topic for a political debate. There are supporters and opponents on these subjects due to their strong points of view....

Organ Donation and Brain Death from Buddhist's Perspectives

Modern scientific and technological developments have contributed to mass production. There have arisen many issues which affect human health both physical and mental are related, regarding to ethical criteria in physical medicine. This paper will discuss brain death and organ transplantation from Buddhists perspectives. There...

Organ Donation
Organ Transplant

Hinduism and Buddhism as Most Popular Religions in India

Located in northern India that flows from the Himalayan Mountains to the Bay of Bengal lies the Ganges River. Known as a sacred entity, many Hindus bathe in its waters to cleanse past sins and to facilitate Moksha, liberation of reincarnation; thus, many faithful customs,...

Faith and Reason Are Compatible: Suspension of Disbelief

Art is a platform that dares reality. It stretches the limits of reality and tends to over step these boundaries all to serve the purpose of the piece of art. This is where the suspension of disbelief comes in. One must set aside their typical...

The Baptism Experience: Passing God's Love Through Baptism

One simple act creates an endless ripple where people passes it on and pays it forward. This is due to the interconnected nature of human beings – when we are happy, we influence the people around us to have a positive outlook in life. And...

The Idea That Faith and Reason Are Compatible in Religious Texts

There are four fundamental claims of the Catholic intellectual tradition and the one I choose is, the dignity of the human being inviolable and the commitment to justice for the common good is necessary. These four fundamental claims are very important in the catholic religion...

The Baptism Experience in the Life of Children in the Medieval Ages

Of all the misconceptions of the Medieval Ages, some of the most prevalent include the life of a child during this era. During this time it is believed that many children were shown no recognition and they were treated as though they were adults as...

Middle Ages

Hinduism and Buddhism: The Values and Purposes of Both Religions

Today there are many different religions in the world. In Asia, Buddhism and Hinduism are popular beliefs in general. Hinduism is the religion of Antigua known and very rich in literally hundreds of divinities, rituals and symbolic beliefs. Believes is that was founded around 1500...

Nacirema Culture and Buddhism Religious Practices

Religion is a topic that provokes or brings about different thoughts and ideas between people. We all have our own beliefs and traditions that make each one of our religions stand out. It is what makes us who we are. Myths and rituals are a...

The Freedom Of Religion And Why Is The First Amendment Important

First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of...

American Constitution
First Amendment

Belief In God: Relationships Between Science and Religion

The conflict between science and spirituality (religion) usually refers to an assumed conflict between science and belief in God. For the purpose of this talk “religion” refers to the monotheistic religion which is the belief in the existence of a good, personal and transcendent creator....

Science Vs. Religion
Spirituality

Why Do You Believe In God

Well, God can do all of these and even more. Sometimes, situations can make anyone forget or doubt God's abilities irrespective of how strong you have been in faith. Remember, no one is ever ready for hard situations to hit them, it just happens, but...

Kingdom of God

Peter`s The Great Reforms: A Knot Between Church And State

Christians all over the world have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Although the situation became better with time, it was still not ideal in the 18th century. Peter the Great, the first emperor of Russia, introduced the Most Holy Synod, and it changed the...

Russian Empire

The Nature Of Confucianism and Daoism, And The Gender Roles

The story of Cui Ying Ying was composed during the late Tang dynasty and is regarded as famous romantic prose. The story explores cultural dynamics during the Tang period and displays the contrasting views of Chinese philosophy in the era. To truly comprehend the symbolism...

Confucianism
Gender Roles

"Paradise Lost" By John Milton: Book Review

In this review, I hope to put forward two different approaches to interpreting Milton’s Paradise Lost. I will be exploring Archie Burnett’s article ‘Sense Variously Drawn Own’ published in 2003 which examines the relation between Lineation, syntax, and meaning in Milton’s Paradise Lost. I will...

Adam and Eve
Paradise Lost

"Does Science Threaten Religion?" By Gerber and Macionis: A Review

The article “Controversy and Debate: Does Science Threaten Religion?” has demonstrated the changing relationship between science and religion, from apparent contradictions in the past to recognizing and accepting each other in the present (Gerber & Macionis, 2018, pp. 553). The author has incorporated a structural-functional...

The History Of The Emergence And Spread Of Christianity And Islam

Christianity is one of the most spread religions in the world. It centers its belief in the public life of Jesus Christ. The term Christianity is a derivation of the followers of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is the pioneer of this faith. Christians base their teaching...

Spread of Christianity

The Second Coming By Yeats: Powerful Warning To Society

In a world full of hostility and loss of faith surrounded by war and technological developments, the modernist era of literature developments, the modernists era of literature arose. The sinking of the Titanic symbolized the falling of the Great Britain empire and newly invented standardized...

The Second Coming
William Butler Yeats

Acceptance Concepts Through the Bible Topics

I believe that God creates all of us to be good genuinely and kindhearted. God believes that we are most beautiful & unique the way he created us. So, bullies should stop their intimidating behaviors towards others, they don’t need to be so, they should...

Humble, Mainwairing and Pompous Pride

This is probably something that none of you know about me and that is I am a massive Dads Army fan, I have all the available episodes and movies on DVD. It’s been great to watch the lost episodes on Gold this week, now I...

Apuleius’ Metamorphoses and Picture of Human Nature

This essay will explore Apuleius’ Metamorphoses with special regard to what picture of human nature and society it presents and whether or not the gods offer the prospect of salvation. Dealing with the tale of Lucius whose overly curious nature results in him being turned...

Human Nature
Metamorphoses

The Shinto Religion and the Root of Japanese Culture

Shintōism is frequently portrayed in art from all over the world, especially in Japan. The Shintō religion is at the root of Japanese culture and history and therefore has a profound impact on its popular culture today, from manga and anime to film to video...

Personal Beliefs

Biblical Archaeology: How the Study of God Is Look Like

Archaeology is defined as the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated. (Dictionary, Archaeology) Archaeology is used throughout history and in many ways. Biblical Archaeology...

Archaeology

The Development of Islamic Art

Islamic art is created not only for the Muslim faith, but it consists of artworks such as textiles, architecture, paintings and drawings that were produced in the regions that were once ruled by Muslim empires. Artists from various disciplines take part in collaborative projects and...

Islamic Art

Unforgiveness Steals Away Your Joy, Peace, and Happiness

Forgiveness is one of the topics most Christians don't like to talk about especially if they were truly hurt by someone close to their heart. Sometimes, we feel it is better to carry the burden of hatred rather than forgive those that have wronged us....

Forgiveness

Role of Cultural and Religious Pluralism

Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their own unique cultural identities. Migration is a key process that makes significant contribution to the growth of urbanism. Often immigrants belonging to particular region, language, religion ,tribe etc tend to...

Art and Religion
Religious Pluralism

Political Correctness and Occidental International Law

The uniformity of European political thought canon as asserted by postcolonialists has created a ‘residual sense that the Christian faith is an expression of white Western privilege ’. This deficit in postcolonial theory, to account for Grotius and theorists who argued for the separation of...

Political Correctness

The Portrayal of the Culture of Death and Afterlife in Art

Throughout history, different cultures dealt with the concept of death and afterlife according to their beliefs, and developed different perspectives about what happens after the body dies. These ideas were often reflected in their art, literature, and their lifestyle as well. Most cultures produce art...

The Tattoo of Cherry Blossom Bracelets in China

The armband tattoos were a popular excitement 10 to 15 years ago. Today, however, it is gradually becoming a hot trend again. These types of tattoos are appealing because they are easy to show and can be quickly hidden in the sleeve. What do bracelet...

Chinese Culture
Christianity

Amazon's Upload is All About the Digital Afterlife

Take Black Mirror's dystopian tech analysis, The Good Place's thoughtful investigation of the afterlife, and the workplace pranks of The Office, squeeze them together, and you have Amazon’s Upload. It takes place in a world that could simply be 10 years from now. You can...

Hagia Sophia and Eastern Roman Empire

Hagia Sophia is the great rich remain and an important monument for the Eastern Roman Empire commonly known as the Byzantine Empire. It remain the Centre for Orthodox Church for nearly a thousand years. The current version was built in the year 532. This iconic...

Ancient Rome
Byzantine Empire
Hagia Sophia

Life After Death for the One Whose Heart Is Light

Built in the 27th century BC for the burial of Pharaoh Djoser by his vizier; architect and later known as the God of Medicine, Imhotep. Pyramids were built for religious purposes and the Egyptian civilization were one of the first to believe in an afterlife....

Insurance Regarding the Existence of an Individual’s Afterlife

Under the rational choice model, decisions individuals make are based on perfect information. This implies that people do not undergo any risks or uncertainties when making a choice. However, religious choices of individuals cannot be based on perfect information, for there are no verified sources...

Johann Christoph Blumhardt and Christology

Johann Christoph Blumhardt (1805-1880) was a Lutheran pastor in Württemberg. He was known among the Lutheran Pietists who built the relation between Southwest Germany [then] with the Basel University of Switzerland mission Society. Certain authors consider this relationship as fostering the trans-Atlantic faith healing movement....

Christology
Martin Luther King

Finding What Is The Biblical Purpose Of Govenrment

One day a man was walking down the streets of his city, headed to the capitol, and then he saw a car wreck right in front of him. His first instinct is to go help, so he rushes over and sees the scene. Now with...

Role of Government

The Creation Myth And Human Evolution: The Everlasting Debate

Every generation of people, young and old as well, come to ask questions about the origin of the universe: Where did it come from? When did it start? or How did it come into existence? Scientists, philosophers or religious believers have all tried to explain...

Creation Myth
Human Evolution

Considering Religious Beliefs And Freedom Of Expression

Whether you believe in something or not, the idea of religion has probably crossed your mind. Some people see it as a way to make sense of the world around us and some see it as way of life. the idea that a higher power,...

The Foundational Beliefs Of The Biblical Worldview

To build a biblical framework, or foundational beliefs about God, His character, His world, and His plan one must go to Scripture, for these are His words. Here answers are found to life’s questions; why are we here, good and evil, our purpose, and where...

The Truths About Real Life In The Biblical Worldview

Introduction Every person has a worldview that is either biblical or secular (humanistic). A person’s worldview is the lens through which they view the world. It dictates the decisions they make, the way they treat themselves and others, and their ideas of life after death....

The Perception Of The World In The Christian Worldview

A worldview, this is easy to say its self-explanatory, but it’s much more than that. A worldview can be defined as, “a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world” (Google Dictionary). Another idea is, how a Christian worldview is defined. A Christian Worldview...

The Correlation Between Christian Worldview And Criminal Justice System

Abstract This criminal justice research paper will discuss how people in law enforcement have demonstrated and or expressed their integration of Christen Worldviews into the field of criminal justice. It will show how their Christian beliefs are the driving force behind their ethical and moral...

The Age Of The Earth: Creation Vs. Evolution

There are four great questions of life that everyone asks. The questions are; Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? And where am I going when I die? These questions are answered completely different depending on if you are an...

The Impact Of Religion On Defining What Is Value Of Life

What might most people on this earth value? You guessed it right, it’s Life! Life brings a lot of meaning and purpose that is I feel is an ideal answer to the society and lets just face it, what could someone value other than life?...

Meaning of Life

Exploration Of Buddhism And Hinduism: Similarities And Differences

Nearly, all people chose at least one religion which is suitable for their thoughts and believes. Due to that fact, people of the same religion come together usually. For instance, there are islamic countries in one community which is called Muslim countries or Ummah. Moreover,...

Buddhism And Hinduism: The Similarities And Differences Of Views

There are three ways to achieve moksha which is when a person’s atman (individual soul) is released from the eternal cycle of reincarnation. Reincarnation is a core idea of Hinduism as according to Upanishad (the third and final Vedic scripture) literature the atman would go...

The Similarities And Differences Between Worldviews Of Hinduism And Buddhism

I will start with the greeting of each religion since it gives a good first impression about you if you greet them in their own way. “Namaste” is the common greeting or salutation in Hinduism, it is usually said with body gestures where they bend...

A Biblical Worldview: The Values Of A Devoted Christian

There comes a point in everyone's life that they must start making decisions on their own, it is at this point they choose what lenses they will use to drive their decisions. For Christians that lense is the Bible and the Holy Spirit is the...

Christian Worldview: Faith And Forgiveness As A Basis

Throughout history, different point of views arose and changed the way people looked at the past of the world. One specific viewpoint is the Christian’s worldview. Christians sin just like everyone else and they recognize that, just like how they recognize the faith of God....

The Biblical Worldview On The Human Trafficking

Choices to commit a crime, fight against crime, or generate justice for criminal acts are all motivated by our worldview. Incorporating a Christian worldview into the Criminal Justice approach allows you to view behavior and response through the lens of God's expectations. This perspective creates...

Human Trafficking

The Christian Worldview: Philosophy And Values

Today's culture has multiple worldviews. Many individuals prefer to select various religions views but mostly keep to one central worldview. A worldview is the gathering of values that form our everyday work and define our overall vision of existence. Looking seriously at my beliefs, my...

The Effect Of Prophet Muhammad On The Quick Spread Of Islam

This paper will deeply investigate the following interesting question on Islam and it’s spread. What effect did the spread of Islam by Prophet Muhammad in Mecca have on the already religious Saudi Arabian society? In order to compose this paper with reliable facts, mostly primary...

Understanding the Power of a Biblical Worldview in Psychology

A biblical worldview is a transformative lens through which we view the world, based on the teachings of the Bible. It impacts our perspectives on various situations, facts, and aspects of life. This worldview has profound implications for psychology, influencing even the smallest details, such...

Best topics on Religion

1. Why Is Freedom of Religion Important

2. Who is God in Your Life: Personal Beliefs and Spiritual Connections

3. Should Religion Be Taught in Schools

4. How Does Religion Affect Your Life

5. How Are Religion and Culture Connected in Various Ways

6. Buddhism and Hinduism: Exploring Similarities and Differences

7. Death is a Passage Beyond Life

8. Why Should We Respect Our Parents: Exploring Islamic Arguments

9. Respect Your Parents and Take Care of Your Children: Ephesians 6:1-9

10. The Importance of Respect and Obedience to Our Parents in Islam

11. Respect for Life: the Issue of Death Penalty in Catholic Teachings

12. What Does Respect Mean to You: Christian Explanation

13. Implementing the Four Noble Truths in Everyday Life

14. Euthanasia and the Catholic Church in Australia

15. Islamic Traditions and Practices: A Focus on Asian Muslims

Seven Deadly Sins

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Essay on What is Religion for Students and Children

500+ words essay on what is religion.

Religion refers to a belief in a divine entity or deity. Moreover, religion is about the presence of God who is controlling the entire world. Different people have different beliefs. And due to this belief, many different cultures exist.

Further, there are a series of rituals performed by each religion. This is done to please Gods of their particular religion. Religion creates an emotional factor in our country. The Constitution of our country is secular . This means that we have the freedom of following any religion. As our country is the most diverse in religions, religion has two main sub broad categories:

Monotheistic Religion

Monotheistic religions believe in the existence of one God. Some of the monotheistic religions are:

Islam: The people who follow are Muslims . Moreover, Islam means to ‘ surrender’ and the people who follow this religion surrender themselves to ‘Allah’.

Furthermore, the holy book of Islam is ‘ QURAN’, Muslims believe that Allah revealed this book to Muhammad. Muhammad was the last prophet. Above all, Islam has the second most popular religion in the entire world. The most important festivals in this religion are Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.

Christianity: Christian also believes in the existence of only one God. Moreover, the Christians believe that God sent his only Jesus Christ for our Salvation. The Holy book of Christians is the Bible .

Furthermore, the bible is subdivided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. Most Importantly, Jesus Christ died on the cross to free us from our sins. The people celebrate Easter on the third day. Because Jesus Christ resurrected on the third day of his death.

However, the celebration of Christmas signifies the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Above all Christianity has the most following in the entire world.

Judaism: Judaism also believes in the existence of one God. Who revealed himself to Abraham, Moses and the Hebrew prophets. Furthermore, Abraham is the father of the Jewish Faith. Most Noteworthy the holy book of the Jewish people is Torah.

Above all, some of the festivals that Jewish celebrate are Passover, Rosh Hashanah – Jewish New Year, Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement, Hanukkah, etc.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Polytheistic Religion

Polytheistic religions are those that believe in the worship of many gods. One of the most believed polytheistic religion is:

Hinduism: Hinduism has the most popularity in India and South-east Asian sub-continent. Moreover, Hindus believe that our rewards in the present life are the result of our deeds in previous lives. This signifies their belief in Karma. Above all the holy book of Hindus is ‘Geeta’. Also, Hindus celebrate many festivals. Some of the important ones are Holi-The festival of colors and Diwali- the festival of lights.

Last, there is one religion that is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic.

Buddhism: Buddhism religion followers do not believe in the existence of God. However, that does not mean that they are an atheist. Moreover, Buddhism believes that God is not at all the one who controls the masses. Also, Buddhism is much different from many other religions. Above all, Gautam Buddha founded Buddhism.

Some FAQs for You

Q1. How many types of religions are there in the entire world?

A1. There are two types of religion in the entire world. And they are Monotheistic religions and Polytheistic religions.

Q2. What is a Polytheistic religion? Give an example

A2. Polytheistic religion area those that follow and worship any Gods. Hinduism is one of the examples of polytheistic religion. Hindus believe in almost 330 million Gods. Furthermore, they have great faith in all and perform many rituals to please them.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Philosophy of Religion

Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the themes and concepts involved in religious traditions as well as the broader philosophical task of reflecting on matters of religious significance including the nature of religion itself, alternative concepts of God or ultimate reality, and the religious significance of general features of the cosmos (e.g., the laws of nature, the emergence of consciousness) and of historical events (e.g., the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, the Holocaust). Philosophy of religion also includes the investigation and assessment of worldviews (such as secular naturalism) that are alternatives to religious worldviews. Philosophy of religion involves all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, value theory (including moral theory and applied ethics), philosophy of language, science, history, politics, art, and so on. Section 1 offers an overview of the field and its significance, with subsequent sections covering developments in the field since the mid-twentieth century. These sections address philosophy of religion as practiced primarily (but not exclusively) in departments of philosophy and religious studies that are in the broadly analytic tradition. The entry gives significant attention to theism, but it concludes with highlighting the increasing breadth of the field, as more traditions outside the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have become the focus of important philosophical work.

1. The Field and its Significance

2.1 positivism, 2.2 wittgensteinian philosophy of religion, 3.1 evidentialism, reformed epistemology, and volitional epistemology, 3.2 the epistemology of disagreement, 4. religion and science, 5.1.1 omniscience, 5.1.2 eternity, 5.1.3 the goodness of god, 5.2.1 ontological arguments, 5.2.2 cosmological arguments, 5.2.3 teleological arguments, 5.2.4 problems of evil, 5.2.5 evil and the greater good, 5.2.6 religious experience, 6. religious pluralism, other internet resources, related entries.

Ideally, a guide to the nature and history of philosophy of religion would begin with an analysis or definition of religion. Unfortunately, there is no current consensus on a precise identification of the necessary and sufficient conditions of what counts as a religion. We therefore currently lack a decisive criterion that would enable clear rulings whether some movements should count as religions (e.g., Scientology or Cargo cults of the Pacific islands). But while consensus in precise details is elusive, the following general depiction of what counts as a religion may be helpful:

A religion involves a communal, transmittable body of teachings and prescribed practices about an ultimate, sacred reality or state of being that calls for reverence or awe, a body which guides its practitioners into what it describes as a saving, illuminating or emancipatory relationship to this reality through a personally transformative life of prayer, ritualized meditation, and/or moral practices like repentance and personal regeneration. [This is a slightly modified definition of the one for “Religion” in the Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion , Taliaferro & Marty 2010: 196–197; 2018, 240.]

This definition does not involve some obvious shortcomings such as only counting a tradition as religious if it involves belief in God or gods, as some recognized religions such as Buddhism (in its main forms) does not involve a belief in God or gods. Although controversial, the definition provides some reason for thinking Scientology and the Cargo cults are proto-religious insofar as these movements do not have a robust communal, transmittable body of teachings and meet the other conditions for being a religion. (So, while both examples are not decisively ruled out as religions, it is perhaps understandable that in Germany, Scientology is labeled a “sect”, whereas in France it is classified as “a cult”.) For a discussion of other definitions of religion, see Taliaferro 2009, chapter one, and for a recent, different analysis, see Graham Oppy 2018, chapter three. The topic of defining religion is re-engaged below in the section 4, “Religion and Science” . But rather than devoting more space to definitions at the outset, a pragmatic policy will be adopted: for the purpose of this entry, it will be assumed that those traditions that are widely recognized today as religions are, indeed, religions. It will be assumed, then, that religions include (at least) Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and those traditions that are like them. This way of delimiting a domain is sometimes described as employing a definition by examples (an ostensive definition) or making an appeal to a family resemblance between things. It will also be assumed that Greco-Roman views of gods, rituals, the afterlife, the soul, are broadly “religious” or “religiously significant”. Given the pragmatic, open-ended use of the term “religion” the hope is to avoid beginning our inquiry with a procrustean bed.

Given the above, broad perspective of what counts as religion, the roots of what we call philosophy of religion stretch back to the earliest forms of philosophy. From the outset, philosophers in Asia, the Near and Middle East, North Africa, and Europe reflected on the gods or God, duties to the divine, the origin and nature of the cosmos, an afterlife, the nature of happiness and obligations, whether there are sacred duties to family or rulers, and so on. As with each of what would come to be considered sub-fields of philosophy today (like philosophy of science, philosophy of art), philosophers in the Ancient world addressed religiously significant themes (just as they took up reflections on what we call science and art) in the course of their overall practice of philosophy. While from time to time in the Medieval era, some Jewish, Christian, and Islamic philosophers sought to demarcate philosophy from theology or religion, the evident role of philosophy of religion as a distinct field of philosophy does not seem apparent until the mid-twentieth century. A case can be made, however, that there is some hint of the emergence of philosophy of religion in the seventeenth century philosophical movement Cambridge Platonism. Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688), Henry More (1614–1687), and other members of this movement were the first philosophers to practice philosophy in English; they introduced in English many of the terms that are frequently employed in philosophy of religion today, including the term “philosophy of religion”, as well as “theism”, “consciousness”,and “materialism”. The Cambridge Platonists provided the first English versions of the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments, reflections on the relationship of faith and reason, and the case for tolerating different religions. While the Cambridge Platonists might have been the first explicit philosophers of religion, for the most part, their contemporaries and successors addressed religion as part of their overall work. There is reason, therefore, to believe that philosophy of religion only gradually emerged as a distinct sub-field of philosophy in the mid-twentieth century. (For an earlier date, see James Collins’ stress on Hume, Kant and Hegel in The Emergence of Philosophy of Religion , 1967.)

Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. Articles in philosophy of religion appear in virtually all the main philosophical journals, while some journals (such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , Religious Studies , Sophia , Faith and Philosophy , the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion , Open Theology , Analytical Theology and others) are dedicated especially to philosophy of religion. Philosophy of religion is in evidence at institutional meetings of philosophers (such as the meetings of the American Philosophical Association and of the Royal Society of Philosophy). There are societies dedicated to the field such as the Society for Philosophy of Religion (USA) and the British Society for Philosophy of Religion and the field is supported by multiple centers such as the Center for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame, the Rutgers Center for Philosophy of Religion, the Centre for the Philosophy of Religion at Glasgow University, The John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham, and other sites (such as the University of Roehampton and Nottingham University). Oxford University Press published in 2009 The History of Western Philosophy of Religion in five volumes involving over 100 contributors (Oppy & Trakakis 2009), and in 2021 Wiley Blackwell published the Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion in four volumes, with over 250 contributors from around the world. What accounts for this vibrancy? Consider four possible reasons.

First: The religious nature of the world population. Most social research on religion supports the view that the majority of the world’s population is either part of a religion or influenced by religion (see the Pew Research Center online). To engage in philosophy of religion is therefore to engage in a subject that affects actual people, rather than only tangentially touching on matters of present social concern. Perhaps one of the reasons why philosophy of religion is often the first topic in textbook introductions to philosophy is that this is one way to propose to readers that philosophical study can impact what large numbers of people actually think about life and value. The role of philosophy of religion in engaging real life beliefs (and doubts) about religion is perhaps also evidenced by the current popularity of books for and against theism in the UK and USA. Interest in the question “is religion dangerous?” (the title of a 2006 book by Keith Ward) calls for work in history, sociology, and psychology, as well was philosophy of religion.

One other aspect of religious populations that may motivate philosophy of religion is that philosophy is a tool that may be used when persons compare different religious traditions. Philosophy of religion can play an important role in helping persons understand and evaluate different religious traditions and their alternatives. See, for example, the philosophically oriented survey Religions: a Quick Immersion and Victoria Harrison’s Eastern Philosophy of Religion .

Second: Philosophy of religion as a field may be popular because of the overlapping interests found in both religious and philosophical traditions. Both religious and philosophical thinking raise many of the same, fascinating questions and possibilities about the nature of reality, the limits of reason, the meaning of life, and so on. Are there good reasons for believing in God? What is good and evil? What is the nature and scope of human knowledge? In Hinduism; A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation (2018), Shyam Ranganathan argues that in Asian thought philosophy and religion are almost inseparable such that interest in the one supports an interest in the other.

Third, studying the history of philosophy provides ample reasons to have some expertise in philosophy of religion. In the West, the majority of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers philosophically reflected on matters of religious significance. Among these modern philosophers, it would be impossible to comprehensively engage their work without looking at their philosophical work on religious beliefs: René Descartes (1596–1650), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Anne Conway (1631–1679), Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673), Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716), John Locke (1632–1704), George Berkeley (1685–1753), David Hume (1711–1776), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), and G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) (the list is partial). And in the twentieth century, one should make note of the important philosophical work by Continental philosophers on matters of religious significance: Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986), Albert Camus (1913–1960), Gabriel Marcel (1889–1973), Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929), Martin Buber (1878–1956), Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995), Simone Weil (1909–1943) and, more recently Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Michel Foucault (1926–1984), and Luce Irigaray (1930–). Evidence of philosophers taking religious matters seriously can also be found in cases of when thinkers who would not (normally) be classified as philosophers of religion have addressed religion, including A.N. Whitehead (1861–1947), Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), G.E. Moore (1873–1958), John Rawls (1921–2002), Bernard Williams (1929–2003), Hilary Putnam (1926–2016), Derek Parfit (1942–2017), Thomas Nagel (1937–), Jürgen Habermas (1929–), and others. Chris Firestone and Nathan Jacobs have done recent work highlighting the immense work on religions by modern philosophers that are sometimes ignored in secular histories of philosophy (see their The Persistence of the Sacred in Modern Thought ).

In Chinese and Indian philosophy there is an even greater challenge than in the West to distinguish important philosophical and religious sources of philosophy of religion. It would be difficult to classify Nagarjuna (150–250 CE) or Adi Shankara (788–820 CE) as exclusively philosophical or religious thinkers. Their work seems as equally important philosophically as it is religiously (see Ranganathan 2018).

Fourth, a comprehensive study of theology or religious studies also provides good reasons to have expertise in philosophy of religion. As just observed, Asian philosophy and religious thought are intertwined and so the questions engaged in philosophy of religion seem relevant: what is space and time? Are there many things or one reality? Might our empirically observable world be an illusion? Could the world be governed by Karma? Is reincarnation possible? In terms of the West, there is reason to think that even the sacred texts of the Abrahamic faith involve strong philosophical elements: In Judaism, Job is perhaps the most explicitly philosophical text in the Hebrew Bible. The wisdom tradition of each Abrahamic faith may reflect broader philosophical ways of thinking; the Christian New Testament seems to include or address Platonic themes (the Logos, the soul and body relationship). Much of Islamic thought includes critical reflection on Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, as well as independent philosophical work.

Let us now turn to the way philosophers have approached the meaning of religious beliefs.

2. The Meaning of Religious Beliefs

Prior to the twentieth century, a substantial amount of philosophical reflection on matters of religious significance (but not all) has been realist. That is, it has often been held that religious beliefs are true or false. Xenophanes and other pre-Socratic thinkers, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Epicureans, the Stoics, Philo, Plotinus differed on their beliefs (or speculation) about the divine, and they and their contemporaries differed about skepticism, but they held (for example) that there either was a divine reality or not. Medieval and modern Jewish, Christian, and Islamic philosophers differed in terms of their assessment of faith and reason. They also faced important philosophical questions about the authority of revelation claims in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible, and the Qur’an. In Asian philosophy of religion, some religions do not include revelation claims, as in Buddhism and Confucianism, but Hindu tradition confronted philosophers with assessing the Vedas and Upanishads. But for the most part, philosophers in the West and East thought there were truths about whether there is a God, the soul, an afterlife, that which is sacred (whether these are known or understood by any human being or not). Realism of some kind is so pervasive that the great historian of philosophy Richard Popkin (1923–2005) once defined philosophy as “the attempt the give an account of what is true and what is important” (Popkin 1999: 1). Important philosophers in the West such as Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), among others, challenged classical realist views of truth and metaphysics (ontology or the theory of what is), but the twentieth century saw two, especially powerful movements that challenged realism: logical positivism and philosophy of religion inspired by Wittgenstein.

As a preface to addressing these two movements, let us take note of some of the nuances in philosophical reflection on the realist treatment of religious language. Many theistic philosophers (and their critics) contend that language about God may be used univocally, analogically or equivocally. A term is used univocally about God and humans when it has the same sense. Arguably, the term “to know” is used univocally of God in the claims “God knows you” and “You know London”, even though how God knows you and how you know London differ radically. In terms of the later difference, philosophers sometimes distinguish between what is attributed to some thing and the mode in which some state (such as knowledge) is realized. Terms are used analogously when there is some similarity between what is being attributed, e.g., when it is said that “two human persons love each other” and “God loves the world”, the term “love” may be used analogically when there is some similarity between these loves). Terms are used equivocally when the meaning is different as in the statement “Adam knew Eve” (which in the King James’ Bible meant Adam and Eve had intercourse) and “God knows the world” (while some of the Homeric gods did have intercourse with humans, this was not part of theistic worldviews). Theological work that stresses our ability to form a positive concept of the divine has been called the via positiva or catophatic theology . On the other hand, those who stress the unknowability of God embrace what is called the via negativa or apophatic theology . Maimonides (1135–1204) was a great proponent of the via negativa , favoring the view that we know God principally through what God is not (God is not material, not evil, not ignorant, and so on).

While some (but not all) philosophers of religion in the Continental tradition have aligned themselves with apophatic theology such as Levinas (who was non-theistic) and Jean-Luc Marion (1946–), a substantial amount (but not all) of analytically oriented philosophy of religion have tended to adopt the via positiva One of the challenges of apophatic theology is that it seems to make the philosophy of God remote from religious practices such as prayer, worship, trust in God’s power and goodness, pilgrimages, and religious ethics. According to Karen Armstrong, some of the greatest theologians in the Abrahamic faiths held that God

was not good, divine, powerful, or intelligent in any way that we could understand. We could not even say that God “existed”, because our concept of existence is too limited. Some of the sages preferred to say that God was “Nothing” because God was not another being… To these theologians some of our modern ideas about God would have seemed idolatrous. (Armstrong 2009: x)

A prima facie challenge to this position is that it is hard to believe that religious practitioners could pray or worship or trust in a being which was altogether inscrutable or a being that we cannot in any way understand. For a realist, via positiva philosophy of God that seeks to appreciate the force of apophatic theology, see Mikael Stenmark’s “Competing conceptions of God: the personal God versus the God beyond being” (2015).

Let us now turn to two prominent philosophical movements that challenged a realist philosophy of God.

“Positivism” is a term introduced by Auguste Comte (1798–1857), a French philosopher who championed the natural and social sciences over against theology and the philosophical practice of metaphysics. The term “positivism” was used later (sometimes amplified to Logical Positivism by A.J. Ayer) by a group of philosophers who met in Austria called the Vienna Circle from 1922 to 1938. This group, which included Moritz Schlick and Max Planck, advanced an empirical account of meaning, according to which for a proposition to be meaningful it needed either to be a conceptual or formal statement in mathematics or about analytic definitions (“triangles have three angles”) or about matters that can be empirically verified or falsified. Ostensibly factual claims that do not make any difference in terms of our actual (or possible) empirical experience are void of meaning. A British philosopher, who visited the Vienna Circle, A.J. Ayer popularized this criterion of meaning in his 1936 book, Language, Truth, and Logic . In it, Ayer argued that religious claims as well as their denial were without cognitive content. By his lights, theism, and also atheism and agnosticism, were nonsense, because they were about the reality (or unreality or unknowability) of that which made no difference to our empirical experience. How might one empirically confirm or disconfirm that there is an incorporeal, invisible God or that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu? Famously, Antony Flew employed this strategy in his likening the God of theism to a belief that there is an undetectable, invisible gardener who could not be heard or smelled or otherwise empirically discovered (Flew 1955). In addition to rejecting traditional religious beliefs as meaningless, Ayer and other logical positivists rejected the meaningfulness of moral statements. By their lights, moral or ethical statements were expressions of persons’ feelings, not about values that have a reality independent of persons’ feelings.

The logical positivist critique of religion is not dead. It can be seen at work in Herman Philipse’s God in the Age of Science; A Critique of Religious Reasons (2012). Still, the criterion of meaning advanced by logical positivism faced a series of objections (for details see Copleston 1960 and Taliaferro 2005b).

Consider five objections that were instrumental in the retreat of logical positivism from its position of dominance.

First, it was charged that logical positivism itself is self-refuting. Is the statement of its standard of meaning (propositions are meaningful if and only if they are about the relations of ideas or about matters that are subject to empirical verification or falsification) itself about the relations of ideas or about matters that are subject to empirical verification or falsification? Arguably not. At best, the positivist criterion of meaning is a recommendation about what to count as meaningful.

Second, it was argued that there are meaningful statements about the world that are not subject to direct or indirect empirical confirmation or disconfirmation. Plausible candidates include statements about the origin of the cosmos or, closer to home, the mental states of other persons or of nonhuman animals (for discussion, see Van Cleve 1999 and Taliaferro 1994).

Third, limiting human experience to what is narrowly understood to be empirical seemed to many philosophers to be arbitrary or capricious. C. D. Broad and others defended a wider understanding of experience to allow for the meaningfulness of moral experience: arguably, one can experience the wrongness of an act as when an innocent person feels herself to be violated.

Fourth, Ayer’s rejection of the meaningfulness of ethics seemed to cut against his epistemology or normative account of beliefs, for he construed empirical knowledge in terms of having the right to certain beliefs. If it is meaningful to refer to the right to beliefs, why is it not meaningful to refer to moral rights such as the right not to be tortured? And if we are countenancing a broader concept of what may be experienced, in the tradition of phenomenology (which involves the analysis of appearances) why rule out, as a matter of principle, the experience of the divine or the sacred?

Fifth, and probably most importantly in terms of the history of ideas, the seminal philosopher of science Carl Hempel (1905–1997) contended that the project of logical positivism was too limited (Hempel 1950). It was insensitive to the broader task of scientific inquiry which is properly conducted not on the tactical scale of scrutinizing particular claims about empirical experience but in terms of a coherent, overall theory or view of the world. According to Hempel, we should be concerned with empirical inquiry but see this as defined by an overall theoretical understanding of reality and the laws of nature. This was not ipso facto a position that favored the meaningfulness of religious belief, but Hempel’s criticism of positivism removed their barrier for overall metaphysical accounts of reality, be these accounts theistic, pantheistic (roughly, God is everything), naturalistic, and so on. Moreover, the positivist critique of what they called metaphysics was attacked as confused as some metaphysics was implied in their claims about empirical experience; see the aptly titled classic The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism (1954) by Gustav Bergmann (1906–1987).

Let us now turn to Wittgenstein (1889–1951) and the philosophy of religion his work inspired.

Wittgenstein’s early work was interpreted by some members of the Vienna Circle as friendly to their empiricism, but they were surprised when he visited the Circle and, rather than Wittgenstein discussing his Tractatus , he read them poetry by Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941), a Bengal mystic (see Taliaferro 2005b: chapter eight). In any case, Wittgenstein’s later work, which was not friendly to their empiricism, was especially influential in post-World War II philosophy and theology and will be the focus here.

In the Philosophical Investigations (published posthumously in 1953) and in many other works (including the publication of notes taken by his students on his lectures), Wittgenstein opposed what he called the picture theory of meaning. On this view, statements are true or false depending upon whether reality matches the picture expressed by the statements. Wittgenstein came to see this view of meaning as deeply problematic. The meaning of language is, rather, to be found not in referential fidelity but in its use in what Wittgenstein referred to as forms of life . As this position was applied to religious matters, D.Z. Phillips (1966, 1976), B.R. Tilghman (1994), and, more recently, Howard Wettstein (2012), sought to displace traditional metaphysical debate and arguments over theism and its alternatives and to focus instead on the way language about God, the soul, prayer, resurrection, the afterlife, and so on, functions in the life of religious practitioners. For example, Phillips contended that the practice of prayer is best not viewed as humans seeking to influence an all powerful, invisible person, but to achieve solidarity with other persons in light of the fragility of life. Phillips thereby sees himself as following Wittgenstein’s lead by focusing, not on which picture of reality seems most faithful, but on the non-theoretical ways in which religion is practiced.

To ask whether God exists is not to ask a theoretical question. If it is to mean anything at all, it is to wonder about praising and praying; it is to wonder whether there is anything in all that. This is why philosophy cannot answer the question “Does God exist?” with either an affirmative or a negative reply … “There is a God”, though it appears to be in the indicative mood, is an expression of faith. (Phillips 1976: 181; see also Phillips 1970: 16–17)

At least two reasons bolstered this philosophy of religion inspired by Wittgenstein. First, it seemed as though this methodology was more faithful to the practice of philosophy of religion being truly about the actual practice of religious persons themselves. Second, while there has been a revival of philosophical arguments for and against theism and alternative concepts of God (as will be noted in section 5 ), significant numbers of philosophers from the mid-twentieth century onward have concluded that all the traditional arguments and counter-arguments about the metaphysical claims of religion are indecisive. If that is the case, the Wittgenstein-inspired new philosophy of religion had the advantage of shifting ground to what might be a more promising area of agreement.

While this non-realist approach to religion has its defenders today, especially in work by Howard Wettstein, many philosophers have contended that traditional and contemporary religious life rests on making claims about what is truly the case in a realist context. It is hard to imagine why persons would pray to God if they, literally, thought there is no God of any kind. (see Wynn 2020, chapter six)

Interestingly, perhaps inheriting the Wittgenstein stress on practice, some philosophers working on religion today place greater stress on the meaning of religion in life, rather than seeing religious belief as primarily a matter of assessing an hypothesis (see Cottingham 2014).

3. Religious Epistemology

According to the prestigious Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy , religious epistemology is “a branch of philosophy that investigates the epistemic status of propositional attitudes about religious claims” (Audi 2015: 925). Virtually all the extant and current methodologies in epistemology have been employed in assessing religious claims. Some of these methods have been more rationalistic in the sense that they have involved reasoning from ostensibly self-evident truths (e.g., a principle of sufficient reason), while others have been more experiential (e.g., empiricism, phenomenology, the stress on passion and subjectivity, the stress on practice as found in pragmatism). Also, some have sought to be ahistorical (not dependent upon historical revelation claims), while others are profoundly historical (e.g., grounded on revelation either known by faith alone or justified evidentially by an appeal to miracles and/or religious experience.

Over the past twenty years, there has been a growing literature on the nature of religious faith. Among many philosophers in the analytical tradition, faith has often been treated as the propositional attitude belief, e.g., believing that there is or is not a God, and much work devoted to examining when such belief is backed up by evidence and, if so, how much and what kinds of evidence. There has been a famous debate over “the ethics of belief”, determining what kinds of belief should not be entertained or countenanced when the evidence is deemed insufficient, and when matters of religious faith may be justified on pragmatic grounds (e.g., as a wager or venture). Faith has also been philosophically treated as trust, a form of hope, an allegiance to an ideal, commitment, and faithful action with or without belief (for a survey see Abraham & Aquino 2017; for a recent defense of religious faith without belief, see Schellenberg 2017).

The following examines first what is known as evidentialism and reformed epistemology and then a form of what is called volitional epistemology of religion.

Evidentialism is the view that for a person to be justified in some belief, that person must have some awareness of the evidence for the belief. This is usually articulated as a person’s belief being justified given the total evidence available to the person. On this view, the belief in question must not be undermined (or defeated) by other, evident beliefs held by the person. Moreover, evidentialists often contend that the degree of confidence in a belief should be proportional to the evidence. Evidentialism has been defended by representatives of all the different viewpoints in philosophy of religion: theism, atheism, advocates of non-theistic models of God, agnostics. Evidentialists have differed in terms of their accounts of evidence (what weight might be given to phenomenology?) and the relationship between evident beliefs (must beliefs either be foundational or basic or entailed by such foundational beliefs?) Probably the most well known evidentialist in the field of philosophy of religion who advocates for theism is Richard Swinburne (1934–).

Swinburne was (and is) the leading advocate of theistic natural theology since the early 1970s. Swinburne has applied his considerable analytical skills in arguing for the coherence and cogency of theism, and the analysis and defense of specific Christian teachings about the trinity, incarnation, the resurrection of Christ, revelation, and more. Swinburne’s projects in the evidentialist tradition in philosophy of religion are in the great tradition of British philosophy of religion from the Cambridge Platonists in the seventeenth century through Joseph Butler (1692–1752) and William Paley (1743–1805) to twentieth century British philosophers such as A.E. Taylor (1869–1945), F. R. Tennant (1866–1957), William Temple (1881–1944), H.D. Lewis (1910–1992), and A.C. Ewing (1899–1973). The positive philosophical case for theism has been met by work by many powerful philosophers, most recently Ronald Hepburn (1927–2008), J.L. Mackie (1917–1981), Antony Flew (1923–2010), Richard Gale (1932–2015), William Rowe (1931–2015), Michael Martin (1932–2015), Graham Oppy (1960–), J.L. Schellenberg (1959–), and Paul Draper (1957–). (See The Routledge Companion to Theism [Taliaferro, Harrison, & Goetz 2012] for an overview of such work.)

There have been at least two interesting, recent developments in the philosophy of religion in the framework of evidentialism. One has been advanced by John Schellenberg who argues that if the God of Christianity exists, God’s reality would be far more evident than it is. Arguably, in the Christian understanding of values, an evident relationship with God is part of the highest human good, and if God were loving, God would bring about such a good. Because there is evidence that God does not make Godself available to earnest seekers of such a relationship, this is evidence that such a God does not exist. According to this line of reasoning, the absence of evidence of the God of Christianity is evidence of absence (see Schellenberg 2007 and Howard-Snyder & Moser 2001). The argument applies beyond Christian values and theism, and to any concept of God in which God is powerful and good and such that a relationship with such a good God would be fulfilling and good for creatures. It would not work with a concept of God (as we find, for example, in the work of Aristotle) in which God is not lovingly and providentially engaged in the world. This line of reasoning is often referred to in terms of the hiddenness of God.

Another interesting development has been advanced by Sandra Menssen and Thomas Sullivan. In philosophical reflection about God the tendency has been to give priority to what may be called bare theism (assessing the plausibility of there being the God of theism) rather than a more specific concept of God. This priority makes sense insofar as the plausibility of a general thesis (there are mammals on the savanna) will be greater than a more specific thesis (there are 12,796 giraffes on the savanna). But Menssen and Sullivan argue that practicing philosophy of religion from a more particular, especially Christian, context, provides a richer “data base” for reflection.

The all–too–common insistence among philosophers that proper procedure requires establishing the likelihood of God’s existence prior to testing revelatory claims cuts off a huge part of the data base relevant to arguing for theism… For it is difficult to establish God’s existence as likely unless some account can be given of the evils of the world, and the account Christianity has to offer is unimaginably richer than any non-religious account. The Christian account, accessed through scripture, is a story of love: of God’s love for us and of what God has prepared for those who love him… It is a story of the salvific value of suffering: our sufferings are caught up with Christ’s, and are included in the sufferings adequate for the world’s redemption, sufferings Christ has willed to make his own. (Menssen & Sullivan 2017: 37–38)

In terms of the order of inquiry, it may be helpful at times, to consider more specific philosophical positions—for example, it may seem at first glance that materialism is hopeless until one engages the resources of some specific materialist account that involves functionalism—but, arguably, this does not alone offset the logical primacy of the more general thesis (whether this is bare theism or bare materialism). Perhaps the import of the Menssen-Sullivan proposal is that philosophers of religion need to enhance their critical assessment of general positions along with taking seriously more specific accounts about the data on hand (e.g., when it comes to theism, assessing the problem of evil in terms of possible theological positions on redemption as presented in ostensible revelations).

Evidentialism has been challenged on many grounds. Some argue that it is too stringent; we have many evident beliefs that we would be at a loss to successfully justify. Instead of evidentialism, some philosophers adopt a form of reliabilism, according to which a person may be justified in a belief so long as the belief is produced by a reliable means, whether or not the person is aware of evidence that justifies the belief. Two movements in philosophy of religion develop positions that are not in line with the traditional evidential tradition: reformed epistemology and volitional epistemology.

Reformed epistemology has been championed by Alvin Plantinga (1932–) and Nicholas Wolterstorff (1932–), among others. Reformed epistemology is “Reformed” insofar as it draws on the Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) who claimed that persons are created with a sense of God ( sensus divinitatis ). While this sense of God may not be apparent due to sin, it can reliably prompt persons to believe in God and support a life of Christian faith. While this prompting may play an evidential role in terms of the experience or ostensible perception of God, it can also warrant Christian belief in the absence of evidence or argument (see K. Clark & VanArragon 2011; M. Bergmann 2017; and Plantinga & Bergmann 2016). In the language Plantinga introduced, belief in God may be as properly basic as our ordinary beliefs about other persons and the world. The framework of Reformed epistemology is conditional as it advances the thesis that if there is a God and if God has indeed created us with a sensus divinitatis that reliably leads us to believe (truly) that God exists, then such belief is warranted. There is a sense in which Reformed epistemology is more of a defensive strategy (offering grounds for thinking that religious belief, if true, is warranted) rather than providing a positive reason why persons who do not have (or believe they have) a sensus divinitatis should embrace Christian faith. Plantinga has argued that at least one alternative to Christian faith, secular naturalism, is deeply problematic, if not self-refuting, but this position (if cogent) has been advanced more as a reason not to be a naturalist than as a reason for being a theist. (For a stronger version of the argument that theism better accounts for the normativity of reason than alternatives, see Angus Menuge’s Agents Under Fire , 2004.)

Reformed epistemology is not ipso facto fideism. Fideism explicitly endorses the legitimacy of faith without the support, not just of (propositional) evidence, but also of reason (MacSwain 2013). By contrast, Reformed epistemology offers a metaphysical and epistemological account of warrant according to which belief in God can be warranted even if it is not supported by evidence and it offers an account of properly basic belief according to which basic belief in God is on an epistemic par with our ordinary basic beliefs about the world and other minds which seem to be paradigmatically rational. Nonetheless, while Reformed epistemology is not necessarily fideistic, it shares with fideism the idea that a person may have a justified religious belief in the absence of evidence.

Consider now what is called volitional epistemology in the philosophy of religion. Paul Moser has systematically argued for a profoundly different framework in which he contends that if the God of Christianity exists, this God would not be evident to inquirers who (for example) are curious about whether God exists. By Moser’s lights, the God of Christianity would only become evident in a process that would involve the moral and spiritual transformation of persons (Moser 2017). This process might involve persons receiving (accepting) the revelation of Jesus Christ as redeemer and sanctifier who calls persons to a radical life of loving compassion, even the loving of our enemies. By willfully subjecting oneself to the commanding love of God, a person in this filial relationship with God through Christ may experience a change of character (from self-centeredness to serving others) in which the person’s character (or very being) may come to serve as evidence of the truths of faith.

The terrain covered so far in this entry indicates considerable disagreement over epistemic justification and religious belief. If the experts disagree about such matters, what should non-experts think and do? Or, putting the question to the so-called experts, if you (as a trained inquirer) disagree about the above matters with those whom you regard as equally intelligent and sensitive to evidence, should that fact alone bring you to modify or even abandon the confidence you hold concerning your own beliefs?

Some philosophers propose that in the case of disagreements among epistemic peers, one should seek some kind of account of the disagreement. For example, is there any reason to think that the evidence available to you and your peers differs or is conceived of differently. Perhaps there are ways of explaining, for example, why Buddhists may claim not to observe themselves as substantial selves existing over time whereas a non-Buddhist might claim that self-observation provides grounds for believing that persons are substantial, enduring agents (David Lund 2005). The non-Buddhist might need another reason to prefer her framework over the Buddhist one, but she would at least (perhaps) have found a way of accounting for why equally reasonable persons would come to different conclusions in the face of ostensibly identical evidence.

Assessing the significance of disagreement over religious belief is very different from assessing the significance of disagreement in domains where there are clearer, shared understandings of methodology and evidence. For example, if two equally proficient detectives examine the same evidence that Smith murdered Jones, their disagreement should (other things being equal) lead us to modify confidence that Smith is guilty, for the detectives may be presumed to use the same evidence and methods of investigation. But in assessing the disagreements among philosophers over (for example) the coherence and plausibility of theism, philosophers today often rely on different methodologies (phenomenology, empiricism, conceptual or linguistic analysis, structural theory, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and so on). But what if a person accepts a given religion as reasonable and yet acknowledges that equally reasonable, mature, responsible inquirers adopt a different religion incompatible with her own and they all share a similar philosophical methodology ? This situation is not an abstract thought experiment. In Christian-Muslim dialogue, philosophers often share a common philosophical inheritance from Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and a broad range of shared views about the perfection of God/Allah.

One option would be to adopt an epistemological pluralism, according to which persons can be equally well justified in affirming incompatible beliefs. This option would seem to provide some grounds for epistemic humility (Audi 2011; Ward 2002, 2014, 2017). In an appropriately titled essay, “Why religious pluralism is not evil and is in some respects quite good”, (2018) Robert McKim presents reasons why, from a philosophical point of view, it may be good to encourage (and not merely acknowledge) ostensibly equally reasonable worldviews. For an overview of the current state of play in philosophy of religion on the topic of religious disagreement, see “Disagreement and the Epistemology of Theology” (King & Kelly 2017).

At the end of this section, two observations are also worth noting about epistemic disagreements. First, our beliefs and our confidence in the truth of our beliefs may not be under our voluntary control. Perhaps you form a belief of the truth of Buddhism based on what you take to be compelling evidence. Even if you are convinced that equally intelligent persons do not reach a similar conclusion, that alone may not empower you to deny what seems to you to be compelling. Second, if the disagreement between experts gives you reason to abandon a position, then the very principle you are relying on (one should abandon a belief that X if experts disagree about X ) would be undermined, for experts disagree about what one should do when experts disagree. For overviews and explorations of relevant philosophical work in a pluralistic setting, see New Models of Religious Understanding (2018) edited by Fiona Ellis and Renewing Philosophy of Religion (2017) edited by Paul Draper and J.L. Schellenberg. Two other resources are also highly recommended: In God, Knowledge, and the Good , Linda Zagzebski commends the epistemic importance of practicing philosophy in a communal setting and in On Evidence in Philosophy William Lycan offers a seasoned view of how to assess the epistemic credibility of arguments by philosophers.

The relationship between religion and science has been an important topic in twentieth century philosophy of religion and it seems highly important today.

This section begins by considering the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) statement on the relationship between science and religion:

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. (NASIM 2008: 12)

This view of science and religion seems promising on many fronts. If the above statement on science and religion is accepted, then it seems to insure there is minimal conflict between two dynamic domains of what the Academies refer to as “human experience”. The National Academies do seem to be correct in implying that the key elements of many religions do not admit of direct scientific investigations nor rest “only on empirical evidence”. Neither God nor Allah nor Brahman (the divine as conceived of in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) is a physical or material object or process. It seems, then, that the divine or the sacred and many other elements in world religions (meditation, prayer, sin and forgiveness, deliverance from craving) can only be indirectly investigated scientifically. So, a neurologist can produce detailed studies of the brains of monks and nuns when they pray and meditate, and there can be comparative studies of the health of those who practice a religion and those who do not, but it is very hard to conceive of how to scientifically measure God or Allah or Brahman or the Dao, heaven, and so on. Despite the initial plausibility of the Academies stance, however, it may be problematic.

First, a minor (and controversial) critical point in response to the Academies: The statement makes use of the terms “supernatural forces or entities” that “are not part of nature”. The term “supernatural” is not the standard term used to refer only to God or the divine, probably (in part) because in English the term “supernatural” refers not just to God or the divine, but also to poltergeists, ghosts, devils, witches, mediums, oracles, and so on. The later are a panoply of what is commonly thought of as preposterous superstition. (The similarity of the terms supernatural and superstitious may not be an accident.) The standard philosophical term to reference God in the English language, from the seventeenth century onward, is theism (from the Greek theos for god/God). So, rather than the statement refer to “supernatural forces or entities”, a more charitable phrase might refer to how many world religions are theistic or involve some sacred reality that is not directly, empirically measurable.

Moving beyond this minor point about terminology, religious beliefs have traditionally and today been thought of as subject to evidence. Evidence for religious beliefs have included appeal to the contingency of the cosmos and principles of explanation, the ostensibly purposive nature of the cosmos, the emergence of consciousness, and so on. Evidence against religious belief have included appeal to the evident, quantity of evil in the cosmos, the success of the natural sciences, and so on.

One reason, however, for supporting the Academies notion that religion and science do not overlap is the fact that in modern science there has been a bracketing of reference to minds and the mental. That is, the sciences have been concerned with a mind-independent physical world, whereas in religion this is chiefly a domain concerned with mind (feelings, emotions, thoughts, ideas, and so on), created minds and (in the case of some religions) the mind of God. The science of Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton was carried out with an explicit study of the world without appeal to anything involving what today would be referred to as the psychological, the mind or the mental. So, Newton’s laws of motion about the attraction and repulsion of material objects make no mention of how love or desire or emotional need might be required to explain the motion of two material bodies to embrace romantically. The bracketing of mind from the physical sciences was not a sign of early scientists having any doubts about the existence, power and importance of minds. That is, from Kepler through Newton and on to the early twentieth century, scientists themselves did not doubt the causal significance of minds; they simply did not include minds (their own or the minds of others) among the data of what they were studying. But interestingly, each of the early modern scientists believed that what they were studying was in some fashion made possible by the whole of the natural world (terrestrial and celestial) being created and sustained in existence by a Divine Mind, an all good, necessarily existing Creator. They had an overall or comprehensive worldview according to which science itself was reasonable and made sense. Scientists have to have a kind of faith or trust in their methods and that the cosmos is so ordered that their methods are effective and reliable. The earliest modern scientists thought such faith (in what Einstein refers to as “the rationality and intelligibility of the world” (Cain 2015: 42, quoting a 1929 statement in Einstein 1954 [1973: 262]) was reasonable because of their belief in the existence of God (Cain 2015).

Whether there is sufficient evidence for or against some religious conception of the cosmos will be addressed in section 4 . Let us contrast briefly, however, two very different views on whether contemporary science has undermined religious belief.

According to Steven Pinker, science has shown the beliefs of many religions to be false.

To begin with, the findings of science entail that the belief systems of all the world’s traditional religions and cultures—their theories of the origins of life, humans, and societies—are factually mistaken. We know, but our ancestors did not, that humans belong to a single species of African primate that developed agriculture, government, and writing late in its history. We know that our species is a tiny twig of a genealogical tree that embraces all living things and that emerged from prebiotic chemicals almost four billion years ago.… We know that the laws governing the physical world (including accidents, disease, and other misfortunes) have no goals that pertain to human well-being. There is no such thing as fate, providence, karma, spells, curses, augury, divine retribution, or answered prayer—though the discrepancy between the laws of probability and the workings of cognition may explain why people think there is. (Pinker 2013)

Following up on Pinker, it should be noted that it would not be scientifically acceptable today to appeal to miracles or to direct acts of God. Any supposed miracle would (to many, if not all scientists) be a kind of defeat and to welcome an unacceptable mystery. This is why some philosophers of science propose that the sciences are methodologically atheistic . That is, while science itself does not pass judgment on whether God exists (even though some philosophers of science do), appealing to God’s existence forms no part of their scientific theories and investigations.

There is some reason to think that Pinker’s case may be overstated, however, and that it would be more fair to characterize the sciences as methodologically agnostic (simply not taking a view on the matter of whether or not God exists) rather than atheistic (taking a position on the matter). First, Pinker’s examples of what science has shown to be wrong, seem unsubstantial. As Michael Ruse points out:

The arguments that are given for suggesting that science necessitates atheism are not convincing. There is no question that many of the claims of religion are no longer tenable in light of modern science. Adam and Eve, Noah’s Flood, the sun stopping for Joshua, Jonah and the whale, and much more. But more sophisticated Christians know that already. The thing is that these things are not all there is to religions, and many would say that they are far from the central claims of religion—God existing and being creator and having a special place for humans and so forth. (Ruse 2014: 74–75)

Ruse goes on to note that religions address important concerns that go beyond what is approachable only from the standpoint of the natural sciences.

Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the purpose of it all? And (somewhat more controversially) what are the basic foundations of morality and what is sentience? Science takes the world as given Science sees no ultimate purpose to reality… I would say that as science does not speak to these issues, I see no reason why the religious person should not offer answers. They cannot be scientific answers. They must be religious answers—answers that will involve a God or gods. There is something rather than nothing because a good God created them from love out of nothing. The purpose of it all is to find eternal bliss with the Creator. Morality is a function of God’s will; it is doing what He wants us to do. Sentience is that by which we realize that we are made in God’s image. We humans are not just any old kind of organism. This does not mean that the religious answers are beyond criticism, but they must be answered on philosophical or theological grounds and not simply because they are not scientific. (2014: 76)

The debate over religion and science is ongoing (for promising work, see Stenmark 2001, 2004).

5. Philosophical Reflection on Theism and Its Alternatives

For much of the history of philosophy of religion, there has been stress on the assessment of theism. Non-theistic concepts of the divine have increasingly become part of philosophy of religion (see, for example, Buckareff & Nagasawa 2016; Diller & Kasher 2013; and Harrison 2006, 2012, 2015). Section 6 makes special note of this broadening of horizons. As noted at the outset of this entry, theism still has some claim for special attention given the large world population that is aligned with theistic traditions (the Abrahamic faiths and theistic Hinduism) and the enormity of attention given to the defense and critique of theism in philosophy of religion historically and today.

5.1 Philosophical Reflection on Divine Attributes

Speculation about divine attributes in theistic tradition has often been carried out in accord with what is currently referred to as perfect being theology , according to which God is understood to be maximally excellent or unsurpassable in greatness. This tradition was (famously) developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4–1109). For a contemporary work offering an historic overview of Anselmian theism, see Yujin Nagasawa’s Maximal God; A New Defense of Perfect Being Theism (2017). Divine attributes in this tradition have been identified by philosophers as those attributes that are the greatest compossible set of great-making properties; properties are compossible when they can be instantiated by the same being. Traditionally, the divine attributes have been identified as omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, worthiness of worship, necessary of non-contingent existence, and eternality (existing outside of time or atemporally). Each of these attributes has been subject to nuanced different analysis, as noted below. God has also been traditionally conceived to be incorporeal or immaterial, immutable, impassable, omnipresent. And unlike Judaism and Islam, Christian theists conceive of God as triune (the Godhead is not homogenous but consists of three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth (fully God and fully human).

One of the tools philosophers use in their investigation into divine attributes involve thought experiments. In thought experiments, hypothetical cases are described—cases that may or may not represent the way things are. In these descriptions, terms normally used in one context are employed in expanded settings. Thus, in thinking of God as omniscient, one might begin with a non-controversial case of a person knowing that a proposition is true, taking note of what it means for someone to possess that knowledge and of the ways in which the knowledge is secured. A theistic thought experiment would seek to extend our understanding of knowledge as we think of it in our own case, working toward the conception of a maximum or supreme intellectual excellence befitting the religious believers’ understanding of God. Various degrees of refinement would then be in order, as one speculates not only about the extent of a maximum set of propositions known but also about how these might be known. That is, in attributing omniscience to God, would one thereby claim God knows all truths in a way that is analogous to the way we come to know truths about the world? Too close an analogy would produce a peculiar picture of God relying upon, for example, induction, sensory evidence, or the testimony of others. One move in the philosophy of God has been to assert that the claim “God knows something” employs the word “knows” univocally when read as picking out the thesis that God knows something, while it uses the term in only a remotely analogical sense if read as identifying how God knows (Swinburne 1977).

Using thought experiments often employs an appearance principle. One version of an appearance principle is that a person has a reason for believing that some state of affairs (SOA) is possible if she can conceive, describe or imagine the SOA obtaining and she knows of no independent reasons for believing the SOA is impossible. As stated the principle is advanced as simply offering a reason for believing the SOA to be possible, and it thus may be seen a advancing a prima facie reason. But it might be seen as a secundum facie reason insofar as the person carefully scrutinizes the SOA and its possible defeaters (see Taliaferro & Knuths 2017). Some philosophers are skeptical of appealing to thought experiments (see Van Inwagen 1998; for a defense see Taliaferro 2002, Kwan 2013, and Swinburne 1979; for general treatments see Sorensen 1992 and Gendler & Hawthorne 2002).

Imagine there is a God who knows the future free action of human beings. If God does know you will freely do some act X , then it is true that you will indeed do X . But if you are free, would you not be free to avoid doing X ? Given that it is foreknown you will do X , it appears you would not be free to refrain from the act.

Initially this paradox seems easy to dispel. If God knows about your free action, then God knows that you will freely do something and that you could have refrained from it. God’s foreknowing the act does not make it necessary. Does not the paradox only arise because the proposition, “Necessarily, if God knows X , then X ” is confused with “If God knows X , then necessarily X ?” After all, it is necessarily the case that if someone knows you are reading this entry right now, then it is true that you are reading this entry, but your reading this entry may still be seen as a contingent, not necessary state of affairs. But the problem is not so easily diffused, however, because God’s knowledge, unlike human knowledge, is infallible, and if God infallibly knows that some state of affairs obtains then it cannot be that the state of affairs does not obtain. Think of what is sometimes called the necessity of the past. Once a state of affairs has obtained, it is unalterably or necessarily the case that it did occur . If the future is known precisely and comprehensively, isn’t the future like the past, necessarily or unalterably the case? If the problem is put in first-person terms and one imagines God foreknows you will freely turn to a different entry in this Encyclopedia (moreover, God knows with unsurpassable precision when you will do so, which entry you will select and what you will think about it), then an easy resolution of the paradox seems elusive. To highlight the nature of this problem, imagine God tells you what you will freely do in the next hour. Under such conditions, is it still intelligible to believe you have the ability to do otherwise if it is known by God as well as yourself what you will indeed elect to do? Self-foreknowledge, then, produces an additional related problem because the psychology of choice seems to require prior ignorance about what will be choose.

Various replies to the freedom-foreknowledge debate have been given. Some adopt compatibilism, affirming the compatibility of free will and determinism, and conclude that foreknowledge is no more threatening to freedom than determinism. While some prominent philosophical theists in the past have taken this route (most dramatically Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758)), this seems to be the minority position in philosophy of religion today (exceptions include Paul Helm, John Fischer, and Lynne Baker). A second position adheres to the libertarian outlook, which insists that freedom involves a radical, indeterminist exercise of power, and concludes that God cannot know future free action. What prevents such philosophers from denying that God is omniscient is that they contend there are no truths about future free actions, or that while there are truths about the future, God either cannot know those truths (Swinburne) or freely decides not to know them in order to preserve free choice (John Lucas). On the first view, prior to someone’s doing a free action, there is no fact of the matter that he or she will do a given act. This is in keeping with a traditional, but controversial, interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy of time and truth. Aristotle may have thought it was neither true nor false prior to a given sea battle whether a given side would win it. Some theists, such as Richard Swinburne, adopt this line today, holding that the future cannot be known. If it cannot be known for metaphysical reasons, then omniscience can be analyzed as knowing all that it is possible to know . That God cannot know future free action is no more of a mark against God’s being omniscient than God’s inability to make square circles is a mark against God’s being omnipotent. Other philosophers deny the original paradox. They insist that God’s foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian freedom and seek to resolve the quandary by claiming that God is not bound in time (God does not so much foreknow the future as God knows what for us is the future from an eternal viewpoint) and by arguing that the unique vantage point of an omniscient God prevents any impingement on freedom. God can simply know the future without this having to be grounded on an established, determinate future. But this only works if there is no necessity of eternity analogous to the necessity of the past. Why think that we have any more control over God’s timeless belief than over God’s past belief? If not, then there is an exactly parallel dilemma of timeless knowledge. For outstanding current analysis of freedom and foreknowledge, see the work of Linda Zagzebski.

Could there be a being that is outside time? In the great monotheistic traditions, God is thought of as without any kind of beginning or end. God will never, indeed, can never, cease to be. Some philosophical theists hold that God’s temporality is very much like ours in the sense that there is a before, during, and an after for God, or a past, present, and future for God. This view is sometimes referred to as the thesis that God is everlasting. Those adopting a more radical stance claim that God is independent of temporality, arguing either that God is not in time at all, or that God is “simultaneously” at or in all times. This is sometimes called the view that God is eternal as opposed to everlasting.

Why adopt the more radical stance? One reason, already noted, is that if God is not temporally bound, there may be a resolution to the earlier problem of reconciling freedom and foreknowledge. As St. Augustine of Hippo put it:

so that of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence. ( The City of God , XI.21)

If God is outside time, there may also be a secure foundation explaining God’s immutability (changelessness), incorruptibility, and immortality. Furthermore, there may be an opportunity to use God’s standing outside of time to launch an argument that God is the creator of time.

Those affirming God to be unbounded by temporal sequences face several puzzles which I note without trying to settle. If God is somehow at or in all times, is God simultaneously at or in each? If so, there is the following problem. If God is simultaneous with the event of Rome burning in 410 CE, and also simultaneous with your reading this entry, then it seems that Rome must be burning at the same time you are reading this entry. (This problem was advanced by Nelson Pike (1970); Stump and Kretzmann 1981 have replied that the simultaneity involved in God’s eternal knowledge is not transitive). A different problem arises with respect to eternity and omniscience. If God is outside of time, can God know what time it is now? Arguably, there is a fact of the matter that it is now, say, midnight on 1 July 2018. A God outside of time might know that at midnight on 1 July 2018 certain things occur, but could God know when it is now that time? The problem is that the more emphasis one places on the claim that God’s supreme existence is independent of time, the more one seems to jeopardize taking seriously time as it is known. Finally, while the great monotheistic traditions provide a portrait of the Divine as supremely different from the creation, there is also an insistence on God’s proximity or immanence. For some theists, describing God as a person or person-like (God loves, acts, knows) is not to equivocate. But it is not clear that an eternal God could be personal. For recent work on God’s relation to time, see work by Katherine Rogers (2007, 2008).

All known world religions address the nature of good and evil and commend ways of achieving human well-being, whether this be thought of in terms of salvation, liberation, deliverance, enlightenment, tranquility, or an egoless state of Nirvana. Notwithstanding important differences, there is a substantial overlap between many of these conceptions of the good as witnessed by the commending of the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) in many religions. Some religions construe the Divine as in some respect beyond our human notions of good and evil. In some forms of Hinduism, for example, Brahman has been extolled as possessing a sort of moral transcendence, and some Christian theologians and philosophers have likewise insisted that God is only a moral agent in a highly qualified sense, if at all (Davies 1993). To call God good is, for them, very different from calling a human being good.

Here are only some of the ways in which philosophers have articulated what it means to call God good. In treating the matter, there has been a tendency either to explain God’s goodness in terms of standards that are not God’s creation and thus, in some measure, independent of God’s will, or in terms of God’s will and the standards God has created. The latter view has been termed theistic voluntarism . A common version of theistic voluntarism is the claim that for something to be good or right simply means that God approves of permits it and for something to be bad or wrong means that God disapproves or forbids it.

Theistic voluntarists face several difficulties: moral language seems intelligible without having to be explained in terms of the Divine will. Indeed, many people make what they take to be objective moral judgments without making any reference to God. If they are using moral language intelligibly, how could it be that the very meaning of such moral language should be analyzed in terms of Divine volitions? New work in the philosophy of language may be of use to theistic voluntarists. According to a causal theory of reference, “water” necessarily designates H 2 O. It is not a contingent fact that water is H 2 O notwithstanding the fact that many people can use the term “water” without knowing its composition. Similarly, could it not be the case that “good” may refer to that which is willed by God even though many people are not aware of (or even deny) the existence of God? Another difficulty for voluntarism lies in accounting for the apparent meaningful content of claims like “God is good”. It appears that in calling God or in particular God’s will “good” the religious believer is saying more than “God wills what God wills”. If so, must not the very notion of goodness have some meaning independent of God’s will? Also at issue is the worry that if voluntarism is accepted, the theist has threatened the normative objectivity of moral judgments. Could God make it the case that moral judgments were turned upside down? For example, could God make cruelty good? Arguably, the moral universe is not so malleable. In reply, some voluntarists have sought to understand the stability of the moral laws in light of God’s immutably fixed, necessary nature.

By understanding God’s goodness in terms of God’s being (as opposed to God’s will alone), one comes close to the non-voluntarist stand. Aquinas and others hold that God is essentially good in virtue of God’s very being. All such positions are non-voluntarist in so far as they do not claim that what it means for something to be good is that God wills it to be so. The goodness of God may be articulated in various ways, either by arguing that God’s perfection requires God being good as an agent or by arguing that God’s goodness can be articulated in terms of other Divine attributes such as those outlined above. For example, because knowledge is in itself good, omniscience is a supreme good. God has also been considered good in so far as God has created and conserves in existence a good cosmos. Debates over the problem of evil (if God is indeed omnipotent and perfectly good, why is there evil?) have poignancy precisely because one side challenges this chief judgment about God’s goodness. (The debate over the problem of evil is taken up in section 5.2.4 .)

The choice between voluntarism and seeing God’s very being as good is rarely strict. Some theists who oppose a full-scale voluntarism allow for partial voluntarist elements. According to one such moderate stance, while God cannot make cruelty good, God can make some actions morally required or morally forbidden which otherwise would be morally neutral. Arguments for this have been based on the thesis that the cosmos and all its contents are God’s creation. According to some theories of property, an agent making something good gains entitlements over the property. The crucial moves in arguments that the cosmos and its contents belong to their Creator have been to guard against the idea that human parents would then “own” their children (they do not, because parents are not radical creators like God), and the idea that Divine ownership would permit anything, thus construing human duties owed to God as the duties of a slave to a master (a view to which not all theists have objected). Theories spelling out why and how the cosmos belongs to God have been prominent in all three monotheistic traditions. Plato defended the notion, as did Aquinas and Locke (see Brody 1974 for a defense).

A new development in theorizing about God’s goodness has been advanced in Zagzebski 2004. Zagzebski contends that being an exemplary virtuous person consists in having good motives. Motives have an internal, affective or emotive structure. An emotion is “an affective perception of the world” (2004: xvi) that “initiates and directs action” (2004: 1). The ultimate grounding of what makes human motives good is that they are in accord with the motives of God. Zagzebski’s theory is perhaps the most ambitious virtue theory in print, offering an account of human virtues in light of theism. Not all theists resonate with her bold claim that God is a person who has emotions, but many allow that (at least in some analogical sense) God may be see as personal and having affective states.

One other effort worth noting to link judgments of good and evil with judgments about God relies upon the ideal observer theory of ethics. According to this theory, moral judgments can be analyzed in terms of how an ideal observer would judge matters. To say an act is right entails a commitment to holding that if there were an ideal observer, it would approve of the act; to claim an act is wrong entails the thesis that if there were an ideal observer, it would disapprove of it. The theory can be found in works by Hume, Adam Smith, R.M. Hare, and R. Firth (see Firth 1952 [1970]). The ideal observer is variously described, but typically is thought of as an impartial omniscient regarding non-moral facts (facts that can be grasped without already knowing the moral status or implications of the fact—for instance, “He did something bad” is a moral fact; “He hit Smith” is not), and as omnipercipient (Firth’s term for adopting a position of universal affective appreciation of the points of view of all involved parties). The theory receives some support from the fact that most moral disputes can be analyzed in terms of different parties challenging each other to be impartial, to get their empirical facts straight, and to be more sensitive—for example, by realizing what it feels like to be disadvantaged. The theory has formidable critics and defenders. If true, it does not follow that there is an ideal observer, but if it is true and moral judgments are coherent, then the idea of an ideal observer is coherent. Given certain conceptions of God in the three great monotheistic traditions, God fits the ideal observer description (and more besides, of course). This need not be unwelcome to atheists. Should an ideal observer theory be cogent, a theist would have some reason for claiming that atheists committed to normative, ethical judgments are also committed to the idea of a God or a God-like being. (For a defense of a theistic form of the ideal observer theory, see Taliaferro 2005a; for criticism see Anderson 2005. For further work on God, goodness, and morality, see Evans 2013 and Hare 2015. For interesting work on the notion of religious authority, see Zagzebski 2012.)

It should be noted that in addition to attention to the classical divine attributes discussed in this section, there has also been philosophical work on divine simplicity, immutability, impassibility, omnipresence, God’s freedom, divine necessity, sovereignty, God’s relationship with abstract objects, Christian teachings about the Trinity, the incarnation, atonement, the sacraments, and more.

5.2 God’s Existence

In some introductory philosophy textbooks and anthologies, the arguments for God’s existence are presented as ostensible proofs which are then shown to be fallible. For example, an argument from the apparent order and purposive nature of the cosmos will be criticized on the grounds that, at best, the argument would establish there is a purposive, designing intelligence at work in the cosmos. This falls far short of establishing that there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, and so on. But two comments need to be made: First, that “meager” conclusion alone would be enough to disturb a scientific naturalist who wishes to rule out all such transcendent intelligence. Second, few philosophers today advance a single argument as a proof. Customarily, a design argument might be advanced alongside an argument from religious experience, and the other arguments to be considered below. True to Hempel’s advice (cited earlier) about comprehensive inquiry, it is increasingly common to see philosophies—scientific naturalism or theism—advanced with cumulative arguments, a whole range of considerations, and not with a supposed knock-down, single proof.

This section surveys some of the main theistic arguments.

There is a host of arguments under this title; version of the argument works, then it can be deployed using only the concept of God as maximally excellent and some modal principles of inference, that is, principles concerning possibility and necessity. The argument need not resist all empirical support, however, as shall be indicated. The focus of the argument is the thesis that, if there is a God, then God’s existence is necessary. In other words, God’s existence is not contingent—God is not the sort of being that just happens to exist or not exist. That necessary existence is built into the concept of God can be supported by appealing to the way God is conceived in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. This would involve some a posteriori , empirical research into the way God is thought of in these traditions. Alternatively, a defender of the ontological argument might hope to convince others that the concept of God is the concept of a being that exists necessarily by beginning with the idea of a maximally perfect being. If there were a maximally perfect being, what would it be like? It has been argued that among its array of great-making qualities (omniscience and omnipotence) would be necessary existence. Once fully articulated, it can be argued that a maximally perfect being which existed necessarily could be called “God”. For an interesting, recent treatment of the relationship between the concept of there being a necessarily existing being and there being a God, see Necessary Existence by Alexander Pruss and Joshua Rasmussen (2018: chapters one to three).

The ontological argument goes back to St. Anselm (1033/34–1109), but this section shall explore a current version relying heavily on the principle that if something is possibly necessarily the case, then it is necessarily the case (or, to put it redundantly, it is necessarily necessary). The principle can be illustrated in the case of propositions. That six is the smallest perfect number (that number which is equal to the sum of its divisors including one but not including itself) does not seem to be the sort of thing that might just happen to be true. Rather, either it is necessarily true or necessarily false. If the latter, it is not possible, if the former, it is possible. If one knows that it is possible that six is the smallest perfect number, then one has good reason to believe that. Does one have reason to think it is possible that God exists necessarily? Defenders of the argument answer in the affirmative and infer that God exists. There have been hundreds of objections and replies to this argument. Perhaps the most ambitious objection is that the same sort of reasoning can be used to argue that God cannot exist; for if it is possible that God not exist and necessary existence is part of the meaning of “God”, then it follows that God cannot exist.

Classical, alternative versions of the ontological argument are propounded by Anselm, Spinoza, and Descartes, with current versions by Alvin Plantinga, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm, and C. Dore; classical critics include Gaunilo and Kant, and current critics are many, including William Rowe, J. Barnes, G. Oppy, and J. L. Mackie. The latest book-length treatments of the ontological argument are two defenses: Rethinking the Ontological Argument by Daniel Dombrowski (2006) and Yujin Nagasawa’s Maximal God; A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism (2017). Not every advocate of perfect being theology embraces the ontological argument. Famously Thomas Aquinas did not accept the ontological argument. Alvin Plantinga, who is one of the philosophers responsible for the revival of interest in the ontological argument, contends that while he, personally, takes the argument to be sound (because he believes that the conclusion that God exists necessarily is true, which entails that the premise, that it is possible that God exists necessarily is true) he does not think the argument has sufficient force to convince an atheist. (Plantinga 1974: 216–217) For a recent new contribution to the ontological argument, see Brian Leftow’s Anselm’s Argument; Divine Necessity .

Arguments in this vein are more firmly planted in empirical, a posteriori reflection than the ontological argument, but some versions employ a priori reasons as well. There are various versions. Some argue that the cosmos had an initial cause outside it, a First Cause in time. Others argue that the cosmos has a necessary, sustaining cause from instant to instant, whether or not the cosmos had a temporal origin. The two versions are not mutually exclusive, for it is possible both that the cosmos had a First Cause and that it has a continuous, sustaining cause.

The cosmological argument relies on the intelligibility of the notion of there being at least one powerful being which is self-existing or whose origin and continued being does not depend on any other being. This could be either the all-out necessity of supreme pre-eminence across all possible worlds used in versions of the ontological argument, or a more local, limited notion of a being that is uncaused in the actual world. If successful, the argument would provide reason for thinking there is at least one such being of extraordinary power responsible for the existence of the cosmos. At best, it may not justify a full picture of the God of religion (a First Cause would be powerful, but not necessarily omnipotent), but it would nonetheless challenge naturalistic alternatives and provide some reason theism. (The later point is analogous to the idea that evidence that there was some life on another planet would not establish that such life is intelligent, but it increases—perhaps only slightly—the hypothesis that there is intelligent life on another planet.)

Both versions of the argument ask us to consider the cosmos in its present state. Is the world as we know it something that necessarily exists? At least with respect to ourselves, the planet, the solar system and the galaxy, it appears not. With respect to these items in the cosmos, it makes sense to ask why they exist rather than not. In relation to scientific accounts of the natural world, such enquiries into causes make abundant sense and are perhaps even essential presuppositions of the natural sciences. Some proponents of the argument contend that we know a priori that if something exists there is a reason for its existence. So, why does the cosmos exist? Arguably, if explanations of the contingent existence of the cosmos (or states of the cosmos) are only in terms of other contingent things (earlier states of the cosmos, say), then a full cosmic explanation will never be attained. However, if there is at least one necessarily (non-contingent) being causally responsible for the cosmos, the cosmos does have an explanation. At this point the two versions of the argument divide.

Arguments to a First Cause in time contend that a continuous temporal regress from one contingent existence to another would never account for the existence of the cosmos, and they conclude that it is more reasonable to accept there was a First Cause than to accept either a regress or the claim that the cosmos just came into being from nothing. Arguments to a sustaining cause of the cosmos claim that explanations of why something exists now cannot be adequate without assuming a present, contemporaneous sustaining cause. The arguments have been based on the denial of all actual infinities or on the acceptance of some infinities (for instance, the coherence of supposing there to be infinitely many stars) combined with the rejection of an infinite regress of explanations solely involving contingent states of affairs. The latter has been described as a vicious regress as opposed to one that is benign. There are plausible examples of vicious infinite regresses that do not generate explanations: for instance, imagine that Tom explains his possession of a book by reporting that he got it from A who got it from B , and so on to infinity. This would not explain how Tom got the book. Alternatively, imagine a mirror with light reflected in it. Would the presence of light be successfully explained if one claimed that the light was a reflection of light from another mirror, and the light in that mirror came from yet another mirror, and so on to infinity? Consider a final case. You come across a word you do not understand; let it be “ongggt”. You ask its meaning and are given another word which is unintelligible to you, and so on, forming an infinite regress. Would you ever know the meaning of the first term? The force of these cases is to show how similar they are to the regress of contingent explanations.

Versions of the argument that reject all actual infinities face the embarrassment of explaining what is to be made of the First Cause, especially since it might have some features that are actually infinite. In reply, Craig and others have contended that they have no objection to potential infinities (although the First Cause will never cease to be, it will never become an actual infinity). They further accept that prior to the creation, the First Cause was not in time, a position relying on the theory that time is relational rather than absolute. The current scientific popularity of the relational view may offer support to defenders of the argument.

It has been objected that both versions of the cosmological argument set out an inflated picture of what explanations are reasonable. Why should the cosmos as a whole need an explanation? If everything in the cosmos can be explained, albeit through infinite, regressive accounts, what is left to explain? One may reply either by denying that infinite regresses actually do satisfactorily explain, or by charging that the failure to seek an explanation for the whole is arbitrary. The question, “Why is there a cosmos?” seems a perfectly intelligible one. If there are accounts for things in the cosmos, why not for the whole? The argument is not built on the fallacy of treating every whole as having all the properties of its parts. But if everything in the cosmos is contingent, it seems just as reasonable to believe that the whole cosmos is contingent as it is to believe that if everything in the cosmos were invisible, the cosmos as a whole would be invisible.

Another objection is that rather than explaining the contingent cosmos, the cosmological argument introduces a mysterious entity of which we can make very little philosophical or scientific sense. How can positing at least one First Cause provide a better account of the cosmos than simply concluding that the cosmos lacks an ultimate account? In the end, the theist seems bound to admit that why the First Cause created at all was a contingent matter. If, on the contrary, the theist has to claim that the First Cause had to do what it did, would not the cosmos be necessary rather than contingent?

Some theists come close to concluding that it was indeed essential that God created the cosmos. If God is supremely good, there had to be some overflowing of goodness in the form of a cosmos (see Stump & Kretzmann 1981, on the ideas of Dionysius the Areopagite; see Rowe 2004 for arguments that God is not free). But theists typically reserve some role for the freedom of God and thus seek to retain the idea that the cosmos is contingent. Defenders of the cosmological argument still contend that its account of the cosmos has a comprehensive simplicity lacking in alternative views. God’s choices may be contingent, but not God’s existence and the Divine choice of creating the cosmos can be understood to be profoundly simple in its supreme, overriding endeavor, namely to create something good. Swinburne has argued that accounting for natural laws in terms of God’s will provides for a simple, overarching framework within which to comprehend the order and purposive character of the cosmos (see also Foster 2004).

Defenders of the cosmological argument include Swinburne, Richard Taylor, Hugo Meynell, Timothy O’Connor, Bruce Reichenbach, Robert Koons, Alexander Pruss, and William Rowe; prominent opponents include Antony Flew, Michael Martin, Howard Sobel, Graham Oppy, Nicholas Everitt, and J. L Mackie. While Rowe had defended the cosmological argument, his reservations about the principle of sufficient reason prevents his accepting the argument as fully satisfying.

These arguments focus on characteristics of the cosmos that seem to reflect the design or intentionality of God or, more modestly, of one or more powerful, intelligent God-like, purposive forces. Part of the argument may be formulated as providing evidence that the cosmos is the sort of reality that would be produced by an intelligent being, and then arguing that positing this source is more reasonable than agnosticism or denying it. As in the case of the cosmological argument, the defender of the teleological argument may want to claim it only provides some reason for thinking there is a God. It may be that some kind of cumulative case for theism would require construing various arguments as mutually reinforcing. If successful in arguing for an intelligent, trans-cosmos cause, the teleological argument may provide some reason for thinking that the First Cause of the cosmological argument (if it is successful) is purposive, while the ontological argument (if it has some probative force) may provides some reason for thinking that it makes sense to posit a being that has Divine attributes and necessarily exists. Behind all of them an argument from religious experience (to be addressed below) may provide some reasons to seek further support for a religious conception of the cosmos and to question the adequacy of naturalism.

One version of the teleological argument will depend on the intelligibility of purposive explanation. In our own human case it appears that intentional, purposive explanations are legitimate and can truly account for the nature and occurrence of events. In thinking about an explanation for the ultimate character of the cosmos, is it more likely for the cosmos to be accounted for in terms of a powerful, intelligent agent or in terms of a naturalistic scheme of final laws with no intelligence behind them? Theists employing the teleological argument draw attention to the order and stability of the cosmos, the emergence of vegetative and animal life, the existence of consciousness, morality, rational agents and the like, in an effort to identify what might plausibly be seen as purposive explicable features of the cosmos. Naturalistic explanations, whether in biology or physics, are then cast as being comparatively local in application when held up against the broader schema of a theistic metaphysics. Darwinian accounts of biological evolution will not necessarily assist us in thinking through why there are either any such laws or any organisms to begin with. Arguments supporting and opposing the teleological argument will then resemble arguments about the cosmological argument, with the negative side contending that there is no need to move beyond a naturalistic account, and the positive side aiming to establish that failing to go beyond naturalism is unreasonable.

In assessing the teleological argument, consider the objection from uniqueness. The cosmos is utterly unique. There is no access to multiple universes, some of which are known to be designed and some are known not to be. Without being able o compare the cosmos to alternative sets of cosmic worlds, the argument fails. Replies to this objection have contended that were we to insist that inferences in unique cases are out of order, then this would rule out otherwise respectable scientific accounts of the origin of the cosmos. Besides, while it is not possible to compare the layout of different cosmic histories, it is in principle possible to envisage worlds that seem chaotic, random, or based on laws that cripple the emergence of life. Now we can envisage an intelligent being creating such worlds, but, through considering their features, we can articulate some marks of purposive design to help judge whether the cosmos is more reasonably believed to be designed rather than not designed. Some critics appeal to the possibility that the cosmos has an infinite history to bolster and re-introduce the uniqueness objection. Given infinite time and chance, it seems likely that something like our world will come into existence, with all its appearance of design. If so, why should we take it to be so shocking that our world has its apparent design, and why should explaining the world require positing one or more intelligent designers? Replies repeat the earlier move of insisting that if the objection were to be decisive, then many seemingly respectable accounts would also have to fall by the wayside. It is often conceded that the teleological argument does not demonstrate that one or more designers are required; it seeks rather to establish that positing such purposive intelligence is reasonable and preferable to naturalism. Recent defenders of the argument include George Schlesinger, Robin Collins, and Richard Swinburne. It is rejected by J. L. Mackie, Michael Martin, Nicholas Everitt, and many others.

One feature of the teleological argument currently receiving increased attention focuses on epistemology. It has been argued by Richard Taylor (1963), Alvin Plantinga (2011 and in Beilby 2002), and others that if we reasonably rely on our cognitive faculties, it is reasonable to believe that these are not brought about by naturalistic forces—forces that are entirely driven by chance or are the outcome of processes not formed by an overriding intelligence. An illustration may help to understand the argument. Imagine Tom coming across what appears to be a sign reporting some information about his current altitude (some rocks in a configuration giving him his current location and precise height above sea-level in meters). If he had reason to believe that this “sign” was totally the result of chance configurations, would he be reasonable to trust it? Some theists argue that it would not be reasonable, and that trusting our cognitive faculties requires us to accept that they were formed by an overarching, good, creative agent. This rekindles Descartes’ point about relying on the goodness of God to ensure that our cognitive faculties are in good working order. Objections to this argument center on naturalistic explanations, especially those friendly to evolution. In evolutionary epistemology, one tries to account for the reliability of cognitive faculties in terms of trial and error leading to survival. A rejoinder by theists is that survival alone is not necessarily linked to true beliefs. It could, in principle, be false beliefs that enhance survival. In fact, some atheists think that believing in God has been crucial to people’s survival, though the belief is radically false. Evolutionary epistemologists reply that the lack of a necessary link between beliefs that promote survival and truth and the fact that some false beliefs or unreliable belief producing mechanisms promote survival nor falls far short of undermining evolutionary epistemology. See Martin (1990), Mackie (1983), and Tooley (see Tooley’s chapters 2, 4, and 6 in Plantinga & Tooley 2008), among others, object to the epistemic teleological argument.

Another recent development in teleological argumentation has involved an argument from fine-tuning.

Fine tuning arguments contend that life would not exist were it not for the fact that multiple physical parameters (e.g., the cosmological constant and the ratio of the mass of the neutron to the mass of the proton) have numerical values that fall within a range of values known to be life-permitting that is very narrow compared to the range of values that are compatible with current physical theory and are known to be life-prohibiting. For example, even minor changes to the nuclear weak force would not have allowed for stars, nor would stars have endured if the ratio of electromagnetism to gravity had been much different. John Leslie observes:

Alterations by less than one part in a billion to the expansion speed early in the Big Bang would have led to runaway expansion, everything quickly becoming so dilute that no stars could have formed, or else to gravitational collapse inside under a second. (Leslie 2007: 76)

Robin Collins and others have argued that theism better accounts for the fine tuning than naturalism (see Collins 2009; for criticism of the argument, see Craig & Smith 1993). For a collection of articles covering both sides of the debate and both biological and cosmological design arguments, see Manson 2003.

A more sustained objection against virtually all versions of the teleological argument takes issue with the assumption that the cosmos is good or that it is the sort of thing that would be brought about by an intelligent, completely benevolent being. This leads us directly to the next central concern of the philosophy of God.

If there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and completely good, why is there evil? The problem of evil is the most widely considered objection to theism in both Western and Eastern philosophy. There are two general versions of the problem: the deductive or logical version, which asserts that the existence of any evil at all (regardless of its role in producing good) is incompatible with God’s existence; and the probabilistic version, which asserts that given the quantity and severity of evil that actually exists, it is unlikely that God exists. The deductive problem is currently less commonly debated because many (but not all) philosophers acknowledge that a thoroughly good being might allow or inflict some harm under certain morally compelling conditions (such as causing a child pain when removing a splinter). More intense debate concerns the likelihood (or even possibility) that there is a completely good God given the vast amount of evil in the cosmos. Such evidential arguments from evil may be deductive or inductive arguments but they include some attempt to show that some known fact about evil bears a negative evidence relation to theism (e.g., it lowers its probability or renders it improbable) whether or not it is logically incompatible with theism. Consider human and animal suffering caused by death, predation, birth defects, ravaging diseases, virtually unchecked human wickedness, torture, rape, oppression, and “natural disasters”. Consider how often those who suffer are innocent. Why should there be so much gratuitous, apparently pointless evil?

In the face of the problem of evil, some philosophers and theologians deny that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. John Stuart Mill took this line, and panentheist theologians today also question the traditional treatments of Divine power. According to panentheism, God is immanent in the world, suffering with the oppressed and working to bring good out of evil, although in spite of God’s efforts, evil will invariably mar the created order. Another response is to think of God as being very different from a moral agent. Brian Davies and others have contended that what it means for God to be good is different from what it means for an agent to be morally good (Davies 2006). See also Mark Murphy’s 2017 book God’s Own Ethics; Norms of Divine Agency and the Argument from Evil . A different, more substantial strategy is to deny the existence of evil, but it is difficult to reconcile traditional monotheism with moral skepticism. Also, insofar as we believe there to be a God worthy of worship and a fitting object of human love, the appeal to moral skepticism will carry little weight. The idea that evil is a privation or twisting of the good may have some currency in thinking through the problem of evil, but it is difficult to see how it alone could go very far to vindicate belief in God’s goodness. Searing pain and endless suffering seem altogether real even if they are analyzed as being philosophically parasitic on something valuable. The three great monotheistic, Abrahamic traditions, with their ample insistence on the reality of evil, offer little reason to try to defuse the problem of evil by this route. Indeed, classical Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are so committed to the existence of evil that a reason to reject evil would be a reason to reject these religious traditions. What would be the point of the Judaic teaching about the Exodus (God liberating the people of Israel from slavery), or the Christian teaching about the incarnation (Christ revealing God as love and releasing a Divine power that will, in the end, conquer death), or the Islamic teaching of Mohammed (the holy prophet of Allah, whom is all-just and all-merciful) if slavery, hate, death, and injustice did not exist?

In part, the magnitude of the difficulty one takes the problem of evil to pose for theism will depend upon one’s commitments in other areas of philosophy, especially ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. If in ethics you hold that there should be no preventable suffering for any reason, regardless of the cause or consequence, then the problem of evil will conflict with your acceptance of traditional theism. Moreover, if you hold that any solution to the problem of evil should be evident to all persons, then again traditional theism is in jeopardy, for clearly the “solution” is not evident to all. Debate has largely centered on the legitimacy of adopting some middle position: a theory of values that would preserve a clear assessment of the profound evil in the cosmos as well as some understanding of how this might be compatible with the existence of an all powerful, completely good Creator. Could there be reasons why God would permit cosmic ills? If we do not know what those reasons might be, are we in a position to conclude that there are none or that there could not be any? Exploring different possibilities will be shaped by one’s metaphysics. For example, if you do not believe there is free will, then you will not be moved by any appeal to the positive value of free will and its role in bringing about good as offsetting its role in bringing about evil.

Theistic responses to the problem of evil distinguish between a defense and a theodicy. A defense seeks to establish that rational belief that God exists is still possible (when the defense is employed against the logical version of the problem of evil) and that the existence of evil does not make it improbable that God exists (when used against the probabilistic version). Some have adopted the defense strategy while arguing that we are in a position to have rational belief in the existence of evil and in a completely good God who hates this evil, even though we may be unable to see how these two beliefs are compatible. A theodicy is more ambitious and is typically part of a broader project, arguing that it is reasonable to believe that God exists on the basis of the good as well as the evident evil of the cosmos. In a theodicy, the project is not to account for each and every evil, but to provide an overarching framework within which to understand at least roughly how the evil that occurs is part of some overall good—for instance, the overcoming of evil is itself a great good. In practice, a defense and a theodicy often appeal to similar factors, the first and foremost being what many call the Greater Good Defense.

In the Greater Good Defense, it is contended that evil can be understood as either a necessary accompaniment to bringing about greater goods or an integral part of these goods. Thus, in a version often called the Free Will Defense, it is proposed that free creatures who are able to care for each other and whose welfare depends on each other’s freely chosen action constitute a good. For this good to be realized, it is argued, there must be the bona fide possibility of persons harming each other. The free will defense is sometimes used narrowly only to cover evil that occurs as a result, direct or indirect, of human action. But it has been speculatively extended by those proposing a defense rather than a theodicy to cover other evils which might be brought about by supernatural agents other than God. According to the Greater Good case, evil provides an opportunity to realize great values, such as the virtues of courage and the pursuit of justice. Reichenbach (1982), Tennant (1930), Swinburne (1979), and van Inwagen (2006) have also underscored the good of a stable world of natural laws in which animals and humans learn about the cosmos and develop autonomously, independent of the certainty that God exists. Some atheists accord value to the good of living in a world without God, and these views have been used by theists to back up the claim that God might have had reason to create a cosmos in which Divine existence is not overwhelmingly obvious to us. If God’s existence were overwhelmingly obvious, then motivations to virtue might be clouded by self-interest and by the bare fear of offending an omnipotent being. Further, there may even be some good to acting virtuously even if circumstances guarantee a tragic outcome. John Hick (1966 [1977]) so argued and has developed what he construes to be an Irenaean approach to the problem of evil (named after St. Irenaeus of the second century). On this approach, it is deemed good that humanity develops the life of virtue gradually, evolving to a life of grace, maturity, and love. This contrasts with a theodicy associated with St. Augustine, according to which God made us perfect and then allowed us to fall into perdition, only to be redeemed later by Christ. Hick thinks the Augustinian model fails whereas the Irenaean one is credible.

Some have based an argument from the problem of evil on the charge that this is not the best possible world. If there were a supreme, maximally excellent God, surely God would bring about the best possible creation. Because this is not the best possible creation, there is no supreme, maximally excellent God. Following Adams (1987), many now reply that the whole notion of a best possible world, like the highest possible number, is incoherent. For any world that can be imagined with such and such happiness, goodness, virtue and so on, a higher one can be imagined. If the notion of a best possible world is incoherent, would this count against belief that there could be a supreme, maximally excellent being? It has been argued on the contrary that Divine excellences admit of upper limits or maxima that are not quantifiable in a serial fashion (for example, Divine omnipotence involves being able to do anything logically or metaphysically possible, but does not require actually doing the greatest number of acts or a series of acts of which there can be no more).

Those concerned with the problem of evil clash over the question of how one assesses the likelihood of Divine existence. Someone who reports seeing no point to the existence of evil or no justification for God to allow it seems to imply that if there were a point they would see it. Note the difference between seeing no point and not seeing a point. In the cosmic case, is it clear that if there were a reason justifying the existence of evil, we would see it? William Rowe thinks some plausible understanding of God’s justificatory reason for allowing the evil should be detectable, but that there are cases of evil that are altogether gratuitous. Defenders like William Hasker (1989) and Stephen Wykstra (1984) reply that these cases are not decisive counter-examples to the claim that there is a good God. These philosophers hold that we can recognize evil and grasp our duty to do all in our power to prevent or alleviate it. But we should not take our failure to see what reason God might have for allowing evil to count as grounds for thinking that there is no reason. This later move has led to a position commonly called skeptical theism . Michael Bergmann, Michael Rea, William Alston and others have argued that we have good reason to be skeptical about whether we can assess whether ostensibly gratuitous evils may or may not be permitted by an all-good God (Bergmann 2012a and 2012b, 2001; Bergmann & Rea 2005; for criticism see Almeida & Oppy 2003; Draper 2014, 2013, 1996). Overall, it needs to be noted that from the alleged fact that we would be unlikely to see a reason for God to allow some evil if there were one, it only follows that our failure to see such a reason is not strong evidence against theism.

For an interesting practical application of the traditional problem of evil to the topic of the ethics of procreation, see Marsh 2015. It has been argued that if one does believe that the world is not good, then that can provide a prima facie reason against procreation. Why should one bring children into a world that is not good? Another interesting, recent development in the philosophy of religion literature has been the engagement of philosophers with ostensible evils that God commands in the Bible (see Bergmann, Murray, & Rea 2010). For a fascinating engagement with the problem of evil that employs Biblical narratives, see Eleonore Stumps’ Wandering in Darkness (2010). The treatment of the problem of evil has also extended to important reflection on the suffering of non-human animals (see S. Clark 1987, 1995, 2017; Murray 2008; Meister 2018). Problems raised by evil and suffering are multifarious and are being addressed by contemporary philosophers across the religious and non-religious spectrums. See, for example, The History of Evil edited by Meister and Taliaferro, in six volumes with over 130 contributors from virtually all religious and secular points of view, and the recent The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil edited by Meister and Moser (2017).

Some portraits of an afterlife seem to have little bearing on our response to the magnitude of evil here and now. Does it help to understand why God allows evil if all victims will receive happiness later? But it is difficult to treat the possibility of an afterlife as entirely irrelevant. Is death the annihilation of persons or an event involving a transfiguration to a higher state? If you do not think that it matters whether persons continue to exist after death, then such speculation is of little consequence. But suppose that the afterlife is understood as being morally intertwined with this life, with opportunity for moral and spiritual reformation, transfiguration of the wicked, rejuvenation and occasions for new life, perhaps even reconciliation and communion between oppressors seeking forgiveness and their victims. Then these considerations might help to defend against arguments based on the existence of evil. Insofar as one cannot rule out the possibility of an afterlife morally tied to our life, one cannot rule out the possibility that God brings some good out of cosmic ills. For two recent arguments against a positive theistic appeal to an afterlife, see Sterba 2019 141–156, and Ekstrom 2021;131–155 — compare with Mawson 2016.

The most recent work on the afterlife in philosophy of religion has focused on the compatibility of an individual afterlife with some forms of physicalism. Arguably, a dualist treatment of human persons is more promising. If you are not metaphysically identical with your body, then perhaps the annihilation of your body is not the annihilation of you. Today, a range of philosophers have argued that even if physicalism is true, an afterlife is still possible (Peter van Inwagen, Lynne Baker, Trenton Merricks, Kevin Corcoran). The import of this work for the problem of evil is that the possible redemptive value of an afterlife should not be ruled out (without argument) if one assumes physicalism to be true. (For an extraordinary, rich resource on the relevant literature, see The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology , edited by J. Walls, 2007.)

Perhaps the justification most widely offered for religious belief concerns the occurrence of religious experience or the cumulative weight of testimony of those claiming to have had religious experiences. Putting the latter case in theistic terms, the argument appeals to the fact that many people have testified that they have felt God’s presence. Does such testimony provide evidence that God exists? That it is evidence has been argued by Jerome Gellman, Keith Yandell, William Alston, Caroline Davis, Gary Gutting, Kai-Man Kwan, Richard Swinburne, Charles Taliaferro, and others. That it is not (or that its evidential force is trivial) is argued by Michael Martin, J. L. Mackie, Kai Nielson, Matthew Bagger, John Schellenberg, William Rowe, Graham Oppy, and others. In an effort to stimulate further investigation, consider the following sketch of some of the moves and countermoves in the debate.

Objection: Religious experience cannot be experience of God for perceptual experience is only sensory and if God is non-physical, God cannot be sensed.

Reply: The thesis that perceptual experience is only sensory can be challenged. Yandell marks out some experiences (as when one has “a feeling” someone is present but without having any accompanying sensations) that might provide grounds for questioning a narrow sensory notion of perceptual experience.

Objection: Testimony to have experienced God is only testimony that one thinks one has experienced God; it is only testimony of a conviction, not evidence.

Reply: The literature on religious experience testifies to the existence of experience of some Divine being on the basis of which the subject comes to think the experience is of God. If read charitably, the testimony is not testimony to a conviction, but to experiences that form the grounds for the conviction. (See Bagger 1999 for a vigorous articulation of this objection, and note the reply by Kai-man Kwam 2003).

Objection: Because religious experience is unique, how could one ever determine whether it is reliable? We simply lack the ability to examine the object of religious experience in order to test whether the reported experiences are indeed reliable.

Reply: As we learned from Descartes, all our experiences of external objects face a problem of uniqueness. It is possible in principle that all our senses are mistaken and we do not have the public, embodied life we think we lead. We cannot step out of our own subjectivity to vindicate our ordinary perceptual beliefs any more than in the religious case. (See the debate between William Alston [2004] and Evan Fales [2004]).

Objection: Reports of religious experience differ radically and the testimony of one religious party neutralizes the testimony of others. The testimony of Hindus cancels out the testimony of Christians. The testimony of atheists to experience God’s absence cancels out the testimony of “believers”.

Reply: Several replies might be offered here. Testimony to experience the absence of God might be better understood as testimony not to experience God. Failing to experience God might be justification for believing that there is no God only to the extent that we have reason to believe that if God exists God would be experienced by all. Theists might even appeal to the claim by many atheists that it can be virtuous to live ethically with atheist beliefs. Perhaps if there is a God, God does not think this is altogether bad, and actually desires religious belief to be fashioned under conditions of trust and faith rather than knowledge. The diversity of religious experiences has caused some defenders of the argument from religious experience to mute their conclusion. Thus, Gutting (1982) contends that the argument is not strong enough to fully vindicate a specific religious tradition, but that it is strong enough to overturn an anti-religious naturalism. Other defenders use their specific tradition to deal with ostensibly competing claims based on different sorts of religious experiences. Theists have proposed that more impersonal experiences of the Divine represent only one aspect of God. God is a person or is person-like, but God can also be experienced, for example, as sheer luminous unity. Hindus have claimed the experience of God as personal is only one stage in the overall journey of the soul to truth, the highest truth being that Brahman transcends personhood. (For a discussion of these objections and replies and references, see Taliaferro 1998.)

How one settles the argument will depend on one’s overall convictions in many areas of philosophy. The holistic, interwoven nature of both theistic and atheistic arguments can be readily illustrated. If you diminish the implications of religious experience and have a high standard regarding the burden of proof for any sort of religious outlook, then it is highly likely that the classical arguments for God’s existence will not be persuasive. Moreover, if one thinks that theism can be shown to be intellectually confused from the start, then theistic arguments from religious experience will carry little weight. Testimony to have experienced God will have no more weight than testimony to have experienced a round square, and non-religious explanations of religious experience—like those of Freud (a result of wish-fulfillment), Marx (a reflection of the economic base), or Durkheim (a product of social forces)—will increase their appeal. If, on the other hand, you think the theistic picture is coherent and that the testimony of religious experience provides some evidence for theism, then your assessment of the classical theistic arguments might be more favorable, for they would serve to corroborate and further support what you already have some reason to believe. From such a vantage point, appeal to wish-fulfillment, economics, and social forces might have a role, but the role is to explain why some parties do not have experiences of God and to counter the charge that failure to have such experiences provides evidence that there is no religious reality. (For an excellent collection of recent work on explaining the emergence and continuation of religious experience, see Schloss & Murray (eds.) 2009.)

There is not space to cover the many other arguments for and against the existence of God, but several additional arguments are briefly noted. The argument from miracles starts from specific extraordinary events, arguing that they provide reasons for believing there to be a supernatural agent or, more modestly, reasons for skepticism about the sufficiency of a naturalistic world view. The argument has attracted much philosophical attention, especially since David Hume’s rejection of miracles. The debate has turned mainly on how one defines a miracle, understands the laws of nature, and specifies the principles of evidence that govern the explanation of highly unusual historical occurrences. There is considerable debate over whether Hume’s case against miracles simply begs the question against “believers”. Detailed exposition is impossible in this short entry. Taliaferro has argued elsewhere that Hume’s case against the rationality of belief in miracles is best seen as part of his overall case for a form of naturalism (Taliaferro 2005b).

There are various arguments that are advanced to motivate religious belief. One of the most interesting and popular is a wager argument often associated with Pascal (1623–1662). It is designed to offer practical reasons to cultivate a belief in God. Imagine that you are unsure whether there is or is not a God. You have it within your power to live on either assumption and perhaps, through various practices, to get yourself to believe one or the other. There would be good consequences of believing in God even if your belief were false, and if the belief were true you would receive even greater good. There would also be good consequences of believing that there is no God, but in this case the consequences would not alter if you were correct. If, however, you believe that there is no God and you are wrong, then you would risk losing the many goods which follow from the belief that God exists and from actual Divine existence. On this basis, it may seem reasonable to believe there is a God.

In different forms the argument may be given a rough edge (for example, imagine that if you do not believe in God and there is a God, hell is waiting). It may be put as an appeal to individual self-interest (you will be better off) or more generally (believers whose lives are bound together can realize some of the goods comprising a mature religious life). Objectors worry about whether one ever is able to bring choices down to just such a narrow selection—for example, to choose either theism or naturalism. Some think the argument is too thoroughly egotistic and thus offensive to religion. Many of these objections have generated some plausible replies (Rescher 1985). (For a thoroughgoing exploration of the relevant arguments, see the collection of essays edited by Jeffrey Jordan (1994).)

Recent work on Pascalian wagering has a bearing on work on the nature of faith (is it voluntary or involuntary?), its value (when, if ever, is it a virtue?), and relation to evidence (insofar as faith involves belief, is it possible to have faith without evidence?). For an overview and promising analysis, see Chappell (1996), Swinburne (1979), Schellenberg (2005), and Rota (2016). A promising feature of such new work is that it is often accompanied by a rich understanding of revelation that is not limited to a sacred scripture, but sees a revelatory role in scripture plus the history of its interpretation, the use of creeds, icons, and so on (see the work of William Abraham [1998]).

A burgeoning question in recent years is whether the cognitive science of religion (CSR) has significance for the truth or rationality of religious commitment. According to CSR, belief in supernatural agents appears to be cognitively natural (Barrett 2004, Kelemen 2004, Dennett 2006, De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. 2010) and easy to spread (Boyer 2001). The naturalness of religion thesis has led some, including Alvin Plantinga it seems (2011: 60), to imply that we have scientific evidence for Calvin’s sensus divinitatis . But others have argued that CSR can intensify the problem of divine hiddenness, since diverse religious concepts are cognitively natural and early humans seem to have lacked anything like a theistic concept (Marsh 2013). There are many other questions being investigated about CSR, such as whether it provides a debunking challenge to religion (Murray & Schloss 2009), whether it poses a cultural challenge for religious outlooks like Schellenberg’s Ultimism (Marsh 2014), and whether it challenges human dignity (Audi 2013). Needless to say, at the present time, there is nothing like a clear consensus on whether CSR should be seen as worrisome, welcome, or neither, by religious believers.

For some further work on the framework of assessing the evidence for and against theism (and other religious and secular worldviews) see C. S. Evans 2010, Chandler and Harrison 2012. In the last twenty years there has been increasing attention given to the aesthetic dimension of arguments for and against religiously significant conceptions of ultimate reality and of the meaning of life (see Brown 2004; Wynn 2013; Hedley 2016; Mawson 2016; Taliaferro & Evans 2010, 2013, 2021).

In the midst of the new work on religious traditions, there has been a steady, growing representation of non-monotheistic traditions. An early proponent of this expanded format was Ninian Smart (1927–2001), who, through many publications, scholarly as well as popular, secured philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism as components in the standard canon of English-speaking philosophy of religion.

Smart championed the thesis that there are genuine differences between religious traditions. He therefore resisted seeing some core experience as capturing the essential identity of being religious. Under Smart’s tutelage, there has been considerable growth in cross-cultural philosophy of religion. Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1916–2000) also did a great deal to improve the representation of non-Western religions and reflection. See, for example, the Routledge series Investigating Philosophy of Religion with Routledge with volumes already published or forthcoming on Buddhism (Burton 2017), Hinduism (Ranganathan 2018), Daoism, and Confucianism. The five volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Religion (mentioned earlier) to be published by Wiley Blackwell (projected for 2021) will have ample contributions on the widest spectrum of philosophical treatments of diverse religions to date.

The explanation of philosophy of religion has involved fresh translations of philosophical and religious texts from India, China, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Exceptional figures from non-Western traditions have an increased role in cross-cultural philosophy of religion and religious dialogue. The late Bimal Krishna Matilal (1935–1991) made salient contributions to enrich Western exposure to Indian philosophy of religion (see Matilal 1882). Among the mid-twentieth-century Asian philosophers, two who stand out for special note are T.R.V. Murti (1955) and S.N. Dasgupta (1922–1955). Both brought high philosophical standards along with the essential philology to educate Western thinkers. As evidence of non-Western productivity in the Anglophone world, see Arvind Sharma 1990 and 1995. There are now extensive treatments of pantheism and student-friendly guides to diverse religious conceptions of the cosmos.

The expanded interest in religious pluralism has led to extensive reflection on the compatibility and possible synthesis of religions. John Hick is the preeminent synthesizer of religious traditions. Hick (1973 a and b)) advanced a complex picture of the afterlife involving components from diverse traditions. Over many publications and many years, Hick has moved from a broadly based theistic view of God to what Hick calls “the Real”, a noumenal sacred reality. Hick claims that different religions provide us with a glimpse or partial access to the Real. In an influential article, “The New Map of the Universe of Faiths” (1973a), Hick raised the possibility that many of the great world religions are revelatory of the Real.

Seen in [an] historical context these movements of faith—the Judaic-Christian, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Muslim—are not essentially rivals. They began at different times and in different places, and each expanded outwards into the surrounding world of primitive natural religion until most of the world was drawn up into one or the other of the great revealed faiths. And once this global pattern had become established it has ever since remained fairly stable… Then in Persia the great prophet Zoroaster appeared; China produced Lao-tzu and then the Buddha lived, the Mahavira, the founder of the Jain religion and, probably about the end of this period, the writing of the Bhagavad Gita; and Greece produced Pythagoras and then, ending this golden age, Socrates and Plato. Then after the gap of some three hundred years came Jesus of Nazareth and the emergence of Christianity; and after another gap the prophet Mohammed and the rise of Islam. The suggestion that we must consider is that these were all movements of the divine revelation . (Hick 1989: 136; emphasis added)

Hick sees these traditions, and others as well, as different meeting points in which a person might be in relation to the same reality or the Real:

The great world faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real from within the major variant ways of being human; and that within each of them the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness is taking place. (1989: 240)

Hick uses Kant to develop his central thesis.

Kant distinguishes between noumenon and phenomenon, or between a Ding an sich [the thing itself] and the thing as it appears to human consciousness…. In this strand of Kant’s thought—not the only strand, but the one which I am seeking to press into service in the epistemology of religion—the noumenal world exists independently of our perception of it and the phenomenal world is that same world as it appears to our human consciousness…. I want to say that the noumenal Real is experienced and thought by different human mentalities, forming and formed by different religious traditions, as the range of gods and absolutes which the phenomenology of religion reports. (1989: 241–242)

One advantage of Hick’s position is that it undermines a rationale for religious conflict. If successful, this approach would offer a way to accommodate diverse communities and undermine what has been a source of grave conflict in the past.

Hick’s work since the early 1980s provided an impetus for not taking what appears to be religious conflict as outright contradictions. He advanced a philosophy of religion that paid careful attention to the historical and social context. By doing so, Hick thought that apparently conflicting descriptions of the sacred could be reconciled as representing different perspectives on the same reality, the Real (see Hick 2004, 2006).

The response to Hick’s proposal has been mixed. Some contend that the very concept of “the Real” is incoherent or not religiously adequate. Indeed, articulating the nature of the Real is no easy task. Hick writes that the Real

cannot be said to be one thing or many, person or thing, substance or process, good or bad, purposive or non-purposive. None of the concrete descriptions that apply within the realm of human experience can apply literally to the unexperienceable ground of that realm…. We cannot even speak of this as a thing or an entity. (1989: 246).

It has been argued that Hick has secured not the equal acceptability of diverse religions but rather their unacceptability. In their classical forms, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity diverge. If, say, the Incarnation of God in Christ did not occur, isn’t Christianity false? In reply, Hick has sought to interpret specific claims about the Incarnation in ways that do not commit Christians to the “literal truth” of God becoming enfleshed. The “truth” of the Incarnation has been interpreted in such terms as these: in Jesus Christ (or in the narratives about Christ) God is disclosed. Or: Jesus Christ was so united with God’s will that his actions were and are the functional display of God’s character. Perhaps as a result of Hick’s challenge, philosophical work on the incarnation and other beliefs and practice specific to religious traditions have received renewed attention (see, for example, Taliaferro and Meister 2009). Hick has been a leading, widely appreciated force in the expansion of philosophy of religion in the late twentieth century.

In addition to the expansion of philosophy of religion to take into account a wider set of religions, the field has also seen an expansion in terms of methodology. Philosophers of religion have re-discovered medieval philosophy—the new translations and commentaries of medieval Christian, Jewish, and Islamic texts have blossomed. There is now a self-conscious, deliberate effort to combine work on the concepts in religious belief alongside a critical understanding of their social and political roots (the work of Foucault has been influential on this point), feminist philosophy of religion has been especially important in re-thinking what may be called the ethics of methodology and, as this is in some respects the most current debate in the field, it is a fitting point to end this entry by highlighting the work of Pamela Sue Anderson (1955–2017) and others.

Anderson (1997 and 2012) seeks to question respects in which gender enters into traditional conceptions of God and in their moral and political repercussions. She also advances a concept of method which delimits justice and human flourishing. A mark of legitimation of philosophy should be the extent to which it contributes to human welfare. In a sense, this is a venerable thesis in some ancient, specifically Platonic philosophy that envisaged the goal and method of philosophy in terms of virtue and the good. Feminist philosophy today is not exclusively a critical undertaking, critiquing “patriarchy”. For a constructive, subtle treatment of religious contemplation and practice, see Coakley 2002. Another key movement that is developing has come to be called Continental Philosophy of Religion. A major advocate of this new turn is John Caputo. This movement approaches the themes of this entry (the concept of God, pluralism, religious experience, metaphysics and epistemology) in light of Heidegger, Derrida, and other continental philosophers. (For a good representation of this movement, see Caputo 2001 and Crocket, Putt, & Robins 2014.)

Abraham, William J., 1998, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199250030.001.0001
Abraham, William J. and Frederick D. Aquino (eds.), 2017, The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology , (Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662241.001.0001
Adams, Marilyn McCord, 1999, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1987, The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology , New York : Oxford University Press.
Almeida, Michael J. and Graham Oppy, 2003, “Sceptical Theism and Evidential Arguments from Evil”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 81(4): 496–516. doi:10.1080/713659758
Alston, William P., 2004, “Religious Experience Justifies Religious Belief” in Peterson and VanArragon 2004: 135–145.
–––, 1991a, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1991b, “The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition”, Philosophical Perspectives , 5: 29–68. doi:10.2307/2214090
Anderson, Pamela Sue, 1997, A Feminist Philosophy of Religion: The Rationality and Myths of Religious Belief , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2005, “What’s Wrong with the God’s Eye Point of View: A Constructive Feminist Critique of the Ideal Observer Theory”, in Harris and Insole 2005: 85–99.
–––, 2012, Re-visioning Gender in Philosophy of Religion: Reason, Love, and Our Epistemic Locatedness , Burlington: Ashgate.
Armstrong, Karen, 2009, The Case for God , New York: Anchor Books.
Audi, Robert, 2011, Rationality and Religious Commitment , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199609574.001.0001
–––, 2013, “The Scientific Study of Religion and the Pillars of Human Dignity”, Monist , 96(3): 462–479. doi:10.5840/monist201396321
––– (ed.), 2015, “Religious epistemology”, in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy , third edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 925.
Augustine of Hippo, c. 413–427 CE, The City of God ( De Civitate Dei ; quoted from the Henry Bettenson translation, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Ayer, A.J., 1936, Language, Truth and Logic , London: Victor Gollancz
–––, 1973, The Central Questions of Philosophy , London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Bagger, Matthew C., 1999, Religious Experience, Justification, and History , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487637
Barrett, Justin 2004, Why Would Anyone Believe in God? , Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Beaty, Michael (ed.), 1990, Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Beaty, Michael and Charles Taliaferro, 1990, “God and Concept Empiricism”, Southwest Philosophy Review , 6(2): 97–105. doi:10.5840/swphilreview19906222
Beilby, James (ed.), 2002, Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bergmann, Gustav, 1954 [1967], The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism , Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Second edition, 1967.
Bergmann, Michael, 2001, “Skeptical Theism and Rowe’s New Evidential Argument from Evil”, Noûs , 35(2): 278–296. doi:10.1111/0029-4624.00297
–––, 2012a, “Commonsense Skeptical Theism”, in Reason, Metaphysics, and Mind: New Essays on the Philosophy of Alvin Plantinga , Kelly James Clark and Michael Rea (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9–30. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199766864.003.0002
–––, 2012b, “Rational Religious Belief without Arguments”, in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology , Louis Pojman and Michael Rea (eds.), Boston: Wadsworth Publishing, pp. 534–49.
–––, 2015, “Religious Disagreement and Rational Demotion”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion , Jonathan Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, volume 6, 21–57. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198722335.003.0002
–––, 2017, “Foundationalism”, in Abraham and Aquino 2017. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662241.013.8
Bergmann, Michael and Patrick Kain (eds.), 2014, Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution , Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669776.001.0001
Bergmann, Michael and Michael Rea, 2005, “In Defence of Sceptical Theism: A Reply to Almeida and Oppy”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 83(2): 241–251. doi:10.1080/00048400500111147
Bergmann, Michael, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea (eds.), 2010, Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199576739.001.0001
Boyer, Pascal, 2001, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought , New York: Basic Books.
Brody, Baruch, 1974, “Morality and Religion Reconsidered in Readings in Philosophy of Religion: An Analytical Approach”, B. Brody (ed.), Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 592–603.
Brower, Jeffrey E., 2008, “Making Sense of Divine Simplicity”, Faith and Philosophy , 25(1): 3–30. doi:10.5840/faithphil20082511
–––, 2009, “Simplicity and Aseity”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology , Thomas P. Flint and Michael C. Rea (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596539.013.0006
Brown, David, 1987, Continental Philosophy and Modern Theology , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2004, God and Enchantment of Place: Reclaiming Human Experience , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199271984.001.0001
–––, 2016, God in a Single Vision: Integrating Philosophy and Theology , Christopher R. Brewer and Robert MacSwain (eds.), London: Routledge.
Bruntrup, Godehard and Ludwig Jaskolla (eds.), 2016, Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199359943.001.0001
Buckareff, Andrei and Yujin Nagasawa (eds.), 2016, Alternative Concepts of God: Essays on the Metaphysics of the Divine , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198722250.001.0001
Burton, David, 2017, Buddhism: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation , (Investigating Philosophy of Religion), London: Routledge.
Cain, Clifford Chalmers, 2015, “Cosmic Origins and Genesis: A Religious Response”, in Re-Vision: A New Look at the Relationship between Science and Religion , Clifford Chalmers Cain (ed.), Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 35–44.
Caputo, John D., 2001, The Religious , (Blackwell Readings in Continental Philosophy), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chandler, Jake and Victoria S. Harrison (eds.), 2012, Probability in the Philosophy of Religion , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604760.001.0001
Chappell, Tim, 1996, “Why Is Faith a Virtue?”, Religious Studies , 32(1): 27–36. doi:10.1017/S0034412500024045
Clack, Beverley and Brian R. Clack, 1998 [2008], The Philosophy of Religion: A Critical Introduction , Malden, MA: Polity Press. Revised and fully expanded second edition, 2008.
Clark, Kelly James, 2014, Religion and the Sciences of Origins , New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. doi:10.1057/9781137414816
Clark, Kelly James and Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), 2011, Evidence and Religious Belief , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199603718.001.0001
Clark, Stephen R. L., 1987, “Animals, Ecosystems and the Liberal Ethic”, Monist , 70(1): 114–133. doi:10.5840/monist19877016
–––, 1995, “Ecology and the Transformation of Nature”, Theology in Green , 3: 28–46.
–––, 2017, “Animals in Religion”, Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies , Linda Kalof (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 571–589. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927142.013.19
Clayton, John, 2006, Religions, Reasons and Gods: Essays in Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Religion , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488399
Coakley, Sarah, 2002, Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy, and Gender , (Challenges in Contemporary Theology), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Collins, James, 1967, The Emergence of Philosophy of Religion , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Collins, Robin, 2009, “The Teleological Argument: An explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe”, in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology , W.L. Craig and J.P. Morelanad (eds.), Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 202–281.
Copleston, Frederick C., 1960, Contemporary Philosophy: Studies of Logical Positivism and Existentialism , London: Burns & Oates.
Cottingham, John, 2014, Philosophy of Religion: Towards a More Humane Approach , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139094627
Craig, William Lane, 1979, The Kalām Cosmological Argument , New York: Barnes and Noble.
–––, 1980, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz , New York: Barnes and Noble.
Craig, William Lane and J. P. Moreland (eds.), 2009, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444308334
Craig, William Lane and Quentin Smith, 1993, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198263838.001.0001
Creel, Richard E., 1995, Divine Impassibility: An Essay in Philosophical Theology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crockett, Clayton, B. Keith Putt, and Jeffrey W. Robbins (eds.), 2014, The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion), Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Dasgupta, Surendranath, 1922–1955, A History of Indian Philosophy , 5 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, Brian, 1993, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2006, The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil , London: Continuum.
Davis, Caroline Franks, 1989, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198250012.001.0001
De Cruz, Helen and Johan De Smedt, 2010, “Paley’s iPod: The Cognitive Basis of the Design Argument within Natural Theology”, Zygon , 45(3): 665–684. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01120.x
Dennett, Daniel C., 2006, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon , New York: Viking.
Diller, Jeanine and Asa Kasher (eds.), 2013, Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5219-1
Dombrowski, Daniel A., 2006, Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498916
Dore, Clement, 1984, Theism , Dordrecht: D. Reidel. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-6300-9
Draper, Paul, 1996, “The Skeptical Theist”, in Howard-Snyder 1996: 175–192.
–––, 2013, “The Limitations of Pure Skeptical Theism”, Res Philosophica , 90(1): 97–111. doi:10.11612/resphil.2013.90.1.6
–––, 2014, “Confirmation Theory and the Core of CORNEA”, in Skeptical Theism: New Essays , Trent Dougherty and Justin P. McBrayer (eds.), Oxford University Press, 132–141. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661183.003.0010
Draper, Paul and J. L. Schellenberg (eds.), 2017, Renewing Philosophy of Religion: Exploratory Essays , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198738909.001.0001
Dworkin, Ronald, 2013, Religion without God , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Earman, John, 2000, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195127382.001.0001
Einstein, Albert, 1954, Ideas and Opinions , New York: Crown Publishers; reprinted London: Souvenir Press, 1973.
Ekstrom, Laura, 2021, God, Suffering, and the Value of Free Will , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Fiona, 2014, God, Values, and Nature , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198714125.001.0001
–––, 2018, New Models of Religious Understanding , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198796732.001.0001
Evans, C. Stephen, 1982, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith , first edition, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
–––, 1996, The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith: The Incarnational Narrative as History , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019826397X.001.0001
–––, 2010, Natural Signs and Knowledge of God: A New Look at Theistic Arguments , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217168.001.0001
–––, 2013, God and Moral Obligation , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696680.001.0001
Evans, C. Stephen and R. Zachary Manis, 2006, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith , second edition, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Everitt, Nicholas, 2004, The Non-Existence of God , London: Routledge.
Fales, Evan, 2004, “Do Mystics See God?” in Peterson and VanArragon 2004: 145–148.
Firestone, Cris and Nathan Jacobs (eds.), 2012, The Persistence of the Sacred in Modern Thought , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Firth, Roderick, 1952 [1970], “Ethical Absolutism and the Ideal Observer”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 12(3): 317–345; reprinted in Readings in Ethical Theory , Wilfrid Sellars and John Hospers (eds.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970: 200–221. doi:10.2307/2103988
Flew, Anthony G., 1955, “Theology and Falsification”, in Flew & MacIntyre 1955: 96–130; originally published 1950 in the first volume of a short lived student journal, University , at Oxford University; reprinted in Mitchell 1971: 1–2.
–––, 1984, God, Freedom and Immortality , Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
–––, 2007, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind , Roy Abraham Varghese (ed.), New York: HarperOne.
Flew, Antony and Alasdair C. MacIntyre (eds.), 1955, New Essays in Philosophical Theology , London: SCM Press.
Forrest, Peter, 1996, God without the Supernatural: A Defense of Scientific Theism , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Foster, John, 1985, Ayer , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
–––, 2004, The Divine Lawmaker: Lectures on Induction, Laws of Nature, and the Existence of God , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199250596.001.0001
Geivett, R. Douglas and Brendan Sweetman (eds.), 1992, Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gellman, Jerome, 1997, Experience of God and the Rationality of Theistic Belief , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2001, Mystical Experience of God: A Philosophical Inquiry , London: Ashgate.
Goetz, Stewart, 2008, Freedom, Teleology, and Evil , London: Continuum.
Goetz, Stewart and Charles Taliaferro, 2008, Naturalism , (Interventions), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Gendler, Tamar and John Hawthorne (eds.), 2002, Conceivability and Possibility , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Griffiths, Paul J., 1994, On Being Buddha: The Classical Doctrine of Buddhahood , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gutting, Gary, 1982, Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hare, John E., 1996, The Moral Gap: Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God’s Assistance , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198269571.001.0001
–––, 2015, God’s Command , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602018.001.0001
Harris, Harriet A. and Christopher J. Insole (eds.), 2005, Faith and Philosophical Analysis: The Impact of Analytical Philosophy on the Philosophy of Religion , (Heythrop Studies in Contemporary Philosophy, Religion and Theology), Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Harrison, Victoria S., 2006, “Internal Realism and the Problem of Religious Diversity”, Philosophia , 34(3): 287–301. doi:10.1007/s11406-006-9029-5
–––, 2012, Eastern Philosophy: The Basics , London and New York: Routledge.
–––, 2015, “Religious Pluralism”, in The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion , Graham Oppy (ed.), London and New York: Routledge, 257–269.
–––, 2022. Eastern Philosophy of Religion , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hasker, William, 1989, God, Time, and Knowledge , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1999, The Emergent Self , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hedley, Douglas, 2016, The Iconic Imagination , London: Bloomsbury.
Helm, Paul, 1988, Eternal God: A Study of God without Time , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198237251.001.0001
–––, 2000, Faith with Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256631.001.0001
Hempel, Carl G., 1950 [1959], “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie , 4(11): 41–63; reprinted as “The Empiricist Criterion of Meaning” in Logical Positivism , A.J. Ayer (ed.), Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959: 108–132.
Hepburn, Ronald W., 1963, “From World to God”, Mind , 72(285): 40–50. doi:10.1093/mind/LXXII.285.40
Hick, John, 1963 [1990], Philosophy of Religion , fourth edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
––– (ed.), 1964 [1970], Classical and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Religion , second edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
–––, 1966 [1977], Evil and the God of Love , London: Macmillan. Second edition, 1977.
–––, 1971, “Rational Theistic Belief without Proofs”, in his Arguments for the Existence of God , New York: Herder and Herder.
–––, 1973a, “The New Map of the Universe of Faiths”, in Hick 1973b [1988: 133–147]. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-19049-2_10
–––, 1973b [1988], God and the Universe of Faiths: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion , London: Macmillan; reprinted 1988.
–––, 1989, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
–––, 2004, The Fifth Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm , Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
–––, 2006, The New Frontier of Religion and Science: Religious Experience, Neuroscience, and The Transcendent , New York: Palgrave.
Hick, John and Arthur C. McGill (eds.), 1967, The Many-Faced Argument: Recent Studies on the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God , New York: Macmillan.
Hill, Daniel J., 2005, Divinity and Maximal Greatness , London: Routledge.
Howard-Snyder, Daniel (ed.), 1996, The Evidential Argument from Evil , Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Howard-Snyder, Daniel and Paul Moser (eds.), 2001, Divine Hiddenness: New Essays , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606090
Hughes, Christopher, 1989, On a Complex Theory of a Simple God: An Investigation in Aquinas’ Philosophical Theology , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hughes, Gerard J., 1995, The Nature of God , London: Routledge.
Jantzen, Grace M., 1994, “Feminists, Philosophers, and Mystics”, Hypatia , 9(4): 186–206. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1994.tb00655.x
Jordan, Jeff (ed.), 1994, Gambling on God: Essays on Pascal’s Wager , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kelemen, Deborah, 2004, “Are Children ‘Intuitive Theists’? Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature”, Psychological Science , 15(5): 295–301. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00672.x
Kenny, Anthony, 1979, The God of the Philosophers , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kerr, Fergus, 1986, Theology after Wittgenstein , Oxford: Blackwell.
King, Nathan L. and Thomas Kelly, 2017, “Disagreement and the Epistemology of Theology”, in Abraham and Aquino 2017. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662241.013.4
Kitcher, Philip, 2014, Life after Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kraay, Klaas J. (ed.), 2015, God and the Multiverse: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives , (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion 10), New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kvanvig, Jonathan L., 1986, The Possibility of an All-Knowing God , London: Macmillan.
Kwan, Kai-man, 2003, “Is the Critical Trust Approach to Religious Experience Incompatible with Religious Particularism?: A Reply to Michael Martin and John Hick”, Faith and Philosophy , 20(2): 152–169. doi:10.5840/faithphil200320229
–––, 2013, Rainbow of Experience, Critical Trust, and God , London: Continuum.
Leftow, Brian, 1991, Time and Eternity , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2022, Anselm’s Argument; Divine Necessity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leslie, John, 1989, Universes , London: Routledge.
–––, 2007, Immortality Defended , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Lund, David H., 2005, The Conscious Self: The Immaterial Center of Subjective States , Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
Lycan, William, 2019, On Evidence in Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacDonald, Scott Charles (ed.), 1991, Being and Goodness: The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mackie, J.L., 1983, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MacSwain, Robert, 2013, Solved by Sacrifice: Austin Farrer, Fideism, and the Evidence of Faith , (Studies in Philosophical Theology, 51), Leuven: Peeters.
Malcolm, Norman, 1977, “The Groundlessness of Religious Beliefs”, in Reason and Religion , Stuart C. Brown (ed.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Manson, Neil, 2003, God and Design: The teleological argument and modern science , London: Routledge.
Marsh, Jason, 2013, “Darwin and the Problem of Natural Nonbelief”, Monist , 96(3): 349–376. doi:10.5840/monist201396316
–––, 2014, “Assessing the Third Way”, in The Roots of Religion: Exploring the Cognitive Science of Religion , Roger Trigg and Justin Barrett (eds.), Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 127–148.
–––, 2015, “Procreative Ethics and the Problem of Evil”, in Permissible Progeny? The Morality of Procreation and Parenting , Sarah Hannan, Samantha Brennan, and Richard Vernon (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65–86. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199378111.003.0003
Martin, Michael, 1990, Atheism: A Philosophical Analysis , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Mawson, T.J., 2016, God and the Meanings of Life: What God Could and Couldn’t Do to Make Our Lives More Meaningful , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
McKim, Robert, 2018, “Why Religious Pluralism is Not Evil and is in Some Respects Quite Good” in The History of Evil from the Mid-Twentieth Century to Today , (The History of Evil, 6), Jerome Gellman (ed.), London: Routledge, chapter 12.
Meister, Chad (ed.), 2010, The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195340136.001.0001
–––, 2018, Evil: A Guide for the Perplexed , second edition, London: Bloomsbury.
Meister, Chad and Paul Moser (eds.), 2017, The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781107295278
Angier, Tom P.S. (ed.), The History of Evil in Antiquity: 2000 BCE – 450 CE , (History of Evil, 1)
Murray, Michael, 2008, Nature Red in tooth and claw , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinsent, Andrew (ed.), The History of Evil in the Medieval Age: 450–1450 CE , (History of Evil, 2)
Robinson, Daniel (ed.), The History of Evil in the Early Modern Age: 1450–1700 CE , (History of Evil, 3)
Hedley, Douglas (ed.), The History of Evil in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries: 1700–1900 CE , (History of Evil, 4)
Harrison, Victoria S. (ed.), The History of Evil in the Early Twentieth Century: 1900–1950 CE , (History of Evil, 5)
Gellman, Jerome (ed.), The History of Evil from the Mid-Twentieth Century to Today: 1950–2018 , (History of Evil, 6)
Menssen, Sandra and Thomas Sullivan, 2007, The Agnostic Inquirer: Revelation form a Philosophical Perspective , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
–––, 2017, “Revelation and Scripture”, in Abraham and Aquino 2017. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662241.013.22
Matilal, B. K., 1982, Logical and Ethical Issues of Religious Belief , Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press.
Menuge, Angus J.L., 2004, Agents under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Meynell, Hugo A., 1982, The Intelligible Universe: A Cosmological Argument , London: Macmillan.
Mitchell, Basil (ed.), 1971, The Philosophy of Religion , (Oxford Readings in Philosophy), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1973, The Justification of Religious Belief , London: Macmillan.
–––, 1994, Faith and Criticism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267584.001.0001
Moreland, James Porter, 2008, Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument , (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion, 4), London: Routledge.
Morris, Thomas V., 1986, The Logic of God Incarnate , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1987a, Anselmian Explorations: Essays in Philosophical Theology , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
––– (ed.), 1987b, The Concept of God , (Oxford Readings in Philosophy), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1991, Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology , Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Moser, Paul K., 2008, The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499012
–––, 2010, The Evidence for God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511817731
–––, 2017, The God Relationship: The Ethics for Inquiry about the Divine , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108164009
Murphy, Mark C., 2017, God’s Own Ethics: Norms of Divine Agency and the Argument from Evil , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198796916.001.0001
Murray, Michael J., 2008, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199237272.001.0001
Murti, T.R.V., 1955, Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Mādhyamika System , London: George Allen and Unwin.
Nagasawa, Yujin, 2017, Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198758686.001.0001
[NASIM] National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, 2008, Science, Evolution, and Creationism , third edition, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/11876 [ NASIM 2008 quote in this entry is also available online at the National Academy of Sciences ]
Nielsen, Kai, 1996, Naturalism Without Foundations , Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Press.
O’Connor, Timothy, 2008, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency , Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444345490
O’Hear, Anthony, 2020, Transcendence, Creation, and Incarnation , London: Routledge.
Oppy, Graham, 1995, Ontological Arguments and Belief in God , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511663840
–––, 2006, Arguing About Gods , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498978
–––, 2018, Naturalism and Religion; A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation , (Investigating Philosophy of Religion), London: Routledge.
Oppy, Graham Robert and Nick Trakakis (eds.), 2009, The History of Western Philosophy of Religion , 5 volumes, New York: Oxford University Press.
Padgett, Alan G., 1992, God, Eternity and the Nature of Time , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Penelhum, Terence, 1983, God and Skepticism: A Study in Skepticism and Fideism , Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7083-0
–––, 1989, Faith , New York: Macmillan.
Peterson, Michael L., William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), 1991, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion , first edition, New York: Oxford University Press. Fifth edition, 2012.
––– (eds.), 1996, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings , first edition, New York: Oxford University Press. Fifth edition, 2014.
Peterson, Michael L. and Raymond J. VanArragon (eds.), 2004, Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion , (Contemporary Debates in Philosophy), Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Philipse, Herman, 2012, God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697533.001.0001
Phillips, D.Z., 1966, the Concept of Prayer , New York: Schocken Books.
–––, 1976, Religion Without Explanation , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2001. “Theism Without Theodicy,” in S. Davis (ed.), Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy , Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
–––, 2004, The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God , London: SCM Press.
–––, 1970, Faith and Philosophical Inquiry , London: Routledge.
Pike, Nelson, 1970 [2002], God and Timelessness , New York: Schocken Books; reprinted Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.
Pinker, Steven, 2013, “Science Is Not Your Enemy”, The New Republic , August 7. URL = < https://newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities >
Plantinga, Alvin, 1967, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1974, The Nature of Necessity , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198244142.001.0001
–––, 1980, Does God Have a Nature? Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.
–––, 1993, Warrant: the Current Debate , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195078624.001.0001
–––, 1993, Warrant and Proper Function , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195078640.001.0001
–––, 2000, Warranted Christian Belief , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195131932.001.0001
–––, 2011, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812097.001.0001
Plantinga, Alvin and Michael Bergmann, 2016, “Religion and Epistemology”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Tim Crane (ed.), London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-K080-2
Alvin Plantinga and Michael Tooley, 2008, Knowledge of God , Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Popkin, Richard H., 1999, The Pimlico History of Philosophy , London: Pimlico.
Proudfoot, Wayne, 1976, God and the Self: Three Types of Philosophy of Religion , Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.
–––, 1985, Religious Experience , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pruss, Alexander R. and Joshua L. Rasmussen, 2018, Necessary Existence , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198746898.001.0001
Putnam, Hilary, 1983, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers , Volume 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ranganathan, Shyam, 2018, Hinduism: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation , (Investigating Philosophy of Religion), London: Routledge.
Re Manning, Russell (ed.), 2013, The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199556939.001.0001
Reichenbach, Bruce R., 1972, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment , Springfield, IL: Thomas Press.
–––, 1982, Evil and a Good God , New York: Fordham University Press.
Rescher, Nicholas, 1985, Pascal’s Wager: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Rhees, Rush, 1969, Without Answers , New York: Schocken Books.
Rogers, Katherin A., 2007, “Anselmian Eternalism: The Presence of a Timeless God”, Faith and Philosophy , 24(1): 3–27. doi:10.5840/faithphil200724134
–––, 2008, Anselm on Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231676.001.0001
Rota, Michael, 2016, Taking Pascal’s wager , Downers Grove: Intervarsity.
Rowe, William L., 1975, The Cosmological Argument , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 1978 [1993], Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction , Belmont: Wadsworth. Second Edition, 1993.
–––, 2004, Can God Be Free? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rundle, Bede, 2004, Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199270503.001.0001
Ruse, Michael, 2014, “Atheism and Science”, in The Customization of Science: The Impact of Religious and Political Worldviews on Contemporary Science Steve Fuller, Mikael Stenmark, Ulf Zackariasson (eds), New York: Palgrave, 73–88. doi:10.1057/9781137379610_5
Schellenberg, J.L., 2005, Prolegomena to Philosophy of Religion , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2007, The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2009, The Will To Imagine: A Justification of Skeptical Religion , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2013, Evolutionary Religion , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673766.001.0001
–––, 2017, “Religion Without God (And Without Turning East): A New Western Alternative to Traditional Theistic Faith”, World and Word , 37(2): 118–127. [ Schellenberg 2017 available online ]
Schlesinger, George N., 1977, Religion and Scientific Method , Dordrecht: Reidel. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1235-5
–––, 1988, New Perspectives on Old-Time Religion , New York: Oxford University Press.
Schloss, Jeffrey and Michael J. Murray (eds.), 2009, The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion , Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557028.001.0001
Sessions, William Lad, 1994, The Concept of Faith: A Philosophical Investigation , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sharma, Arvind, 1990, A Hindu Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
–––, 1995, Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason , University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Smart, J.J.C. and J.J. Haldane, 1996, Atheism and Theism , Oxford: Blackwell. Second edition 2003. doi:10.1002/9780470756225
Smart, Ninian, 1962 [1986], “Religion as a Discipline?”, Higher Education Quarterly , 17(1): 48–53; reprinted in his Concept and Empathy: Essays in the Study of Religion , Donald Wiebe (ed.), New York: New York University Press, 1986. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1962.tb00978.x
Sobel, Jordan Howard, 2003, Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511497988
Sorensen, Roy A., 1992, Thought Experiments , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019512913X.001.0001
Soskice, Janet Martin, 1985, Metaphor and Religious Language , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stenmark, Mikael, 2001, Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion , Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
–––, 2004, How to Relate Science and Religion: A Multidimensional Model , Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
–––, 2015, “Competing Conceptions of God: The Personal God versus the God beyond Being”, Religious Studies , 51(2): 205–220. doi:10.1017/S0034412514000304
Sterba, James, 2019, Is a Good God Logically Possible? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stiver, Dan R., 1996, The Philosophy of Religious Language: Sign, Symbol, and Story , Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Stump, Eleonore, 2010, Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199277421.001.0001
Stump, Eleonore and Norman Kretzmann, 1981, “Eternity”, The Journal of Philosophy , 78(8): 429–458; reprinted in Morris 1987b: pp. 219–52. doi:10.2307/2026047
Swinburne, Richard, 1977, The Coherence of Theism , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198240708.001.0001
–––, 1979, The Existence of God , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271672.001.0001
–––, 1981, Faith and Reason , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198247257.001.0001
–––, 1986, The Evolution of the Soul , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198236980.001.0001
–––, 1994, The Christian God , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
–––, 1996, Is There a God? , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198235446.001.0001
–––, 1998, Providence and the Problem of Evil , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198237987.001.0001
Taliaferro, Charles, 1994, Consciousness and the Mind of God , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511520693
–––, 1998, Contemporary Philosophy of Religion , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2001, “Sensibility and Possibilia: A Defense of Thought Experiments”, Philosophia Christi , 3(2): 403–421.
–––, 2002, “Philosophy of Religion”, in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy , Nicholas Bunnin and E. P. Tsui-James (eds.), second edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 453–489. doi:10.1002/9780470996362.ch17
–––, 2005a, “A God’s Eye Point of View: The Divine Ethic”, in Harris and Insole 2005: 76–84.
–––, 2005b, Evidence and Faith: Philosophy of Religion Since the Seventeenth Century , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610370
–––, 2009, Philosophy of Religion: A Beginner’s Guide , Oxford: Oneworld.
–––,2021, Religions: A Quick Immersion , New York: Tibidabo Publishing Inc.
Taliaferro, Charles and Jil Evans (eds.), 2011, Turning Images in Philosophy, Science, and Religion: A New Book of Nature , Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563340.001.0001
–––, 2013, The Image in Mind: Theism, Naturalism, and the Imagination , London: Continuum.
–––, 2021, Is God Invisible? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taliaferro, Charles and Chad Meister (eds.), 2009, The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521514330
Taliaferro, Charles, Paul Draper, and Philip L. Quinn, 2010, A Companion to Philosophy of Religion , second edition, (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, 9), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Taliaferro, Charles, Victoria S. Harrison, and Stewart Goetz, 2012, The Routledge Companion to Theism , London: Routledge.
Taliaferro, Charles and Elliot Knuths, 2017, “Thought Experiments in Philosophy of Religion: The Virtues of Phenomenological Realism and Values”, Open Theology , 3(1): 167–173. doi:10.1515/opth-2017-0013
Taliaferro, Charles and Elsa J. Marty (eds.), 2010 [2018], A Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion , New York: Continuum. Second edition 2018.
Taylor, Richard, 1963, Metaphysics , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tennant, F.R., 1930, Philosophical Theology (Volume II), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tilghman, Benjamin R., 1994, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion , Oxford: Blackwell.
Timpe, Kevin, 2014, Free Will in Philosophical Theology , London: Bloomsbury.
Tracy, Thomas F. (ed.), 1994, The God Who Acts: Philosophical and Theological Explorations , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Trigg, Roger, 1989, Reality at Risk , London: Harvester.
–––, 1993, Rationality and Science: Can Science Explain Everything? , Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Cleve, James, 1999, Problems from Kant , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Inwagen, Peter, 1983, An Essay on Free Will , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
–––, 1995, God, Knowledge and Mystery: Essays in Philosophical Theology , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 1998, “Modal Epistemology”, Philosophical Studies , 92(1/2): 67–84. doi:10.1023/A:1017159501073
–––, 2006, The Problem of Evil , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199245604.001.0001
–––, 2017, Thinking about Free Will , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316711101
Wainwright, William J., 1981, Mysticism: A Study of Its Nature, Cognitive Value, and Moral Implications , Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
–––, 1988, Philosophy of Religion , (The Wadsworth Basic Issues in Philosophy Series), first edition, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Second edition, 1998.
––– (ed.), 1996, God, Philosophy, and Academic Culture , Atlanta: Scholars Press
Walls, Jerry L. (ed.), 2007, The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195170498.001.0001
Ward, Keith, 1974, The Concept of God , Hoboken: Basil Blackwell.
–––, 2002, God, a Guide for the Perplexed , London: Oneworld.
–––, 2014, The Evidence for God: The Case for the Existence of the Spiritual Dimension , London: Darton, Longman & Todd.
–––, 2017, The Christian Idea of God: A Philosophical Foundation for Faith , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108297431
–––, 2006, Is Religion Dangerous? Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Westphal, Merold, 1984, God, Guilt, and Death: An Existential Phenomenology of Religion , Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Wettstein, Howard, 2012, The Significance of Religious Experience , Oxford: Oxford University Press doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199841363.001.0001
Whitehead, Alfred North, 1929 [1978], Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corrected edition, David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (eds), New York: Free Press, 1978. Gifford lectures delivered in the University of Edinburgh during the session 1927–28.
Wierenga, Edward R., 1989, The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wisdom, J., 1945, “Gods”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 45: 185–206. doi:10.1093/aristotelian/45.1.185
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1953, Philosophical Investigations ( Philosophische Untersuchungen ), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 1976, Reason within the Bounds of Religion , Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
–––, 1982, “God Everlasting”, in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion , Steven M. Cahn and David Shatz (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Wykstra, Stephen J., 1984, “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of ‘Appearance’”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 16(2): 73–93. doi:10.1007/BF00136567
Wynn, Mark R., 2013, Renewing the Senses: A Study of the Philosophy and Theology of the Spiritual Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669981.001.0001
Wynn, Mark, 2020, Spiritual Traditions and the Virtues , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yandell, Keith E., 1993, The Epistemology of Religious Experience , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1991, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195107630.001.0001
–––, 2004, Divine Motivation Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511606823
–––, 2008, “Omnisubjectivity”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion , Jonathan L. Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, volume 1, 231–247.
–––, 2012, Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936472.001.0001

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Essays in Philosophy , a Biannual Journal
Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to John Deck, Cara Stevens, and Thomas Churchill for comments and assistance in preparing an earlier version of this entry. Portions of this entry appeared previously in C. Taliaferro, “Philosophy of Religion”, in N. Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy , 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

9 Reasons Why Religion is so Important in Life and to Society Today

Post author: lesoned
Post category: Society and Culture
Post comments: 0 Comments
Post last modified: June 30, 2020

The importance of religion cannot be underestimated considering the impact it is having on our daily lives every day whether we are interested in it or not

Religion is defined as believing in a supernatural power by carrying out different activities or rituals as a way of worship.

There can’t be a fixed definition of this, but there are a couple of ways you could define it as you understand

But why on earth we would need to create a religious culture in our lives today

Here are 9 reasons why religion is important in our everyday lives and today’s society in reference to all religions in the world

Table of Contents

Importance of religion in life

1. guidance on how to live life.

There are lots of things taught in religion especially to children in Sunday school on how to live peacefully with others in society

This is the same reason students are taught religious education in schools as religious education backs up formal education teaching its followers to be law-abiding citizens with high levels of integrity

And if you are going astray in life, religious books do provide you with information on what you ought to do in life

2. Religion gives us a purpose in life

One of the questions people ask themselves in life is what their purpose on earth and in life is.

Religion gives you a purpose to live for and for some people, it is to spread the word of God or others it’s to eradicate the evil from the world through their actions

And others it’s to help others, especially in poor countries through charity organizations. Some religions have been carrying out charity activities in Africa especially Christianity

In all those ways religion is inspiring people to fulfill their purposes in life for a good cause

3. Religion gives people hope, faith, and belief for a better future during hard times

Religious teachings set a very good ground for counseling and giving people hope during hard times

The stories in religious books like the bible actually have encouraging stories to help people endure hardships in life and be able to achieve what they want in life

Religion is also being used in counseling the youth about the effects of early sex through sex education and also helping the youth in the fight against using drugs

4. Religion is used to guide us know what is wrong or right

Much as with our natural conscious we can tell what is wrong or right, religion guides you to follow and respect your intuition and do the right thing

Indirectly religion is keeping law and order by making people who follow it and do what they are taught in religious books.

Even in debatable instances, religion acts the final verdict on whether something is wrong or right and also helps us live with each other in harmony through doing the right thing

Importance of religion to society

5. religion promotes unity in society.

Even though different religions cause disunity among us

Having one religion in a given society is actually going to promote unity and that’s because all people in that society will all at least have something in common to bring them together

And of course, there are lots of benefits from being united and all this could be brought about by religion

6. Religions unite races, genders and social standings as one

Religion is a good platform to fight racism which is a growing vice in the world today

Most people are always looking at their differences and discriminating themselves into races and high and low-class standing which is not good

Most religions teach their followers that we are all made by the same God irrespective of our differences in culture and races or gender so we should treat everyone the same way we treat others

So religions encourage believers to accept everyone the way they are and accept them irrespective of the differences

In that way, religion is able to tackle growing vices which makes the world a better place for everyone to live in

7. Religion acts as a universal language

Apart from love since we can all speak the language of love, religion also provides another language we can all speak if we all belong to a certain religion.

We can all be able to communicate with each irrespective of our races or indigenous languages, this is because religion provides a common ground and common language that can be spoken by all believers which creates one big society

8. Religion is used in promoting morals and values in society

One of the core purposes of religion in our society is creating a world with best acceptable morals from people

And in instances where society shows very poor morals religion is blamed because it has a very strong stand in our society today to ensure that morality is achieved

This could be through religious leaders being exemplary and also organizing seminars to educate people on expected and acceptable moral behaviors in our society

9. Religion is used to make laws

Most laws are made with a foundation laid from religious books

Most laws in the world are based on religious books. The Sharia law is based on Quran teachings well as Christian nations also base their laws on the teachings of the bible

Religious books are all-around books that can be used for a lot of things and even offering advice to people but in this case, they are actually being used to make laws especially with confusing and sensitive crimes

You could see even most Christian nations have something to do God on their national emblems and people are sworn in using a religious book to prove their honesty in courts of law

Actually, if Christians follow the 10 commandments there would be little or no crime as most offenses lie within not following these laws

On the contrary, this kind of setup makes it hard to separate religion from the state

The world could run out of control if not for religions laying principles for their followers to abide by

Interestingly a couple of people are only doing the right thing because they fear to go to hell, which means if people wake up today and they are told there is no hell or heaven you might get some surprise reactions and behaviors from them

So religion is acting as a control to a ticking time bomb to earth from tearing its self apart though one of its greatest setbacks is lack of evidence to back some teachings and inconsistency which make a lot of people give up and end up atheists

And religious leaders failing to practice what they preach

But as long as religion remains, the world will be a good place to live in with each other

Can You Wear Black to a Wedding?

Which Religion is Right for You in the World Today?

12 Advantages and Disadvantages of using Social media

Is Religion Important to Society? Essay

Introduction, works cited.

The fact that religion has been an important factor in human society is difficult to debate. When religion is viewed as the phenomenon of institutionalized belief, it is apparent that it is a major element of human culture. It tends to affect and even shape multiple aspects of the life of a society, which will be defined here as a community or group of people. The factors that religion can affect include, for instance, customs, practices, values, as well as politics, economy, and some more tangible phenomena like art (Wu 106-109). Given that this scope of influence cannot be dismissed as insignificant, it can be stated that religion has been and remains important in varied societies all over the world from multiple perspectives, including economic, political, and cultural ones.

As it was stated, religion tends to affect the politics, economy, and culture of a community. For example, the study of Chinese religious beliefs demonstrates that Daoism has had a major impact on the country by bringing legitimacy to the power of the dynasty (Wu 109). Consequently, the rulers of China supported Daoism while Daoism supported them. Furthermore, Daoist rituals were used to develop frameworks for varied interactions, including economy-related ones; merchant guilds, in particular, were guided by Daoist principles (Wu 106). Wu does not make specific suggestions about the nature of such phenomena, but since they resulted in stability and established a functioning structure, they might be viewed as beneficial at least from certain viewpoints.

In effect, Wu points out that religious organizations of the country performed multiple functions, including “economic, cultural, political” ones (106). Examples of cultural effects include, for instance, gender-related expectations and norms, which defined the roles of men and women in the society of China (Wu 107-108). Thus, the review of the history of China shows that its religion is evidenced to have a significant impact on the development of its society from three perspectives. However, this study mostly considers the China of the past; an example of the modern-day influence of religion is also in order.

One of the religion-related issues that are noted by researchers nowadays is its impact on the attitudes of people towards various aspects of equality. The example of gender expectations and roles from the past of China can be complemented by the problem of acknowledging and tolerating (or accepting) homosexuality. Naturally, religion is not the only reason for individual or group intolerance. However, a recent study finds that the counties of the US that have a greater portion of conservative Protestants are more likely to have relatively negative attitudes towards homosexuality (Adamczyk et al. 11-13). In other words, religion can affect the values and perspectives of communities, and some of these effects can be rather deleterious. Furthermore, the study by Adamczyk et al. reviews modern-day societies, which implies that religion proceeds to have an impact on humanity. Thus, by using two examples of different countries in different time periods, one can prove that religion can and tends to affect human communities.

Whether negative or positive, the impact of religion on society is visible from the above-presented examples. Various countries experience diverse effects of the religions that are favored in them, and this tendency can be found in the past and present. Some of the factors that can be modified by religion include those that are related to such crucial aspects of human lives as politics, economy, and culture. In turn, such influence should be viewed as important. Thus, religion is evidenced to have affected the lives of human societies, which implies that it is of major significance to them.

Adamczyk, Amy, et al. “Place Matters: Contextualizing the Roles of Religion and Race for Understanding Americans’ Attitudes about Homosexuality.” Social Science Research , vol. 57, 2016, pp. 1-16.

Wu, Nengchang. “Religion and Society.” Review of Religion and Chinese Society , vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 104-127.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 17). Is Religion Important to Society? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-religion-important-to-society/

"Is Religion Important to Society?" IvyPanda , 17 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/is-religion-important-to-society/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Is Religion Important to Society'. 17 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Is Religion Important to Society?" June 17, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-religion-important-to-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Is Religion Important to Society?" June 17, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-religion-important-to-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Is Religion Important to Society?" June 17, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-religion-important-to-society/.

Daoist and Thean Hou Temples
Yin vs. Yang in the Daoist Philosophy
Confucian and Daoist Thoughts in Comparison
Daoism: Its Role in Chinese History and Influence on Art
Daoism and Its Influence in the Modern Chinese Culture
Confucianism and Daoism Comparison
Daoism Regional Peculiarities
Daoism Philosophy in the Cultures of the Koreans, Japanese and Chinese
Confucianism and Daoism Influence on Zen Buddhism
The Growth of Daoism in During Late Qing Dynasty
The Necessity of Religion
The Role of the Church in Ireland: Past and Present
Afterlife Beliefs and Day-to-Day Implications
Prohibitions in Islam and Its Historical Reasons
Spirituality Issues: Death and Dying

Essay Samples
College Essay
Writing Tools
Writing guide

↑ Return to College Essay

Why is Religion Important Essay

If we are not governed by a set of values, then our principles and idea of right and wrong are only based on opinion. The Nazis were not evil. They had a set of values that do not match many of the values that exist today. If they had kept to the religious promises they made the Vatican as they rose to power, then they would have had a hard time taking life in the way they did. My hypothesis is that religion is a human creation, but without some form of faith in more than human opinion, we are lost because only have ourselves to account to.

Human nature is bad. We are not born with a knowledge of right or wrong. That is why people turn out so differently. It is not because a person is born good or bad, but the way they are treated and the values they are taught is what makes them the person they become. Religion has sets of rules that people follow on mass. These rules are more than laws with punishments and rewards, they are based on a set of values, and those are the things that help a person grow to be well adjusted.

Imagine kids without the rule of parents. If a child was allowed to run around and do what he or she wished in an unchecked manner, then children would kill themselves by accident, become sociopaths, and become savages. There would be no way of knowing what would happen. Kids need a parental figure to give out rules and teach values, and that is what religion does for adults. It gives them a set of values and rules to live by.

We are taught what is right and wrong, and religion allows a certain unification that governments are unable to instill. The law tells us not to kill. We are not born with that knowledge. We are born to kill, which is why kids are often merciless insect (and pet) killers. We have both eyes facing front, which means we are born predators. The law tells us not to kill and not to steal. Most will never do such things, and part of that is due to religion. Religion came up with the idea that we shouldn’t kill and steal long before the law did.

The law simply tells us what to do, but religion tries to explain why we should do things. One may say that we do not do things because the law tells us not to, and that is a good enough reason for them, but it is too black and white for most people. Religion helps us shape values so we can make our own choices. For example, the law may say do not kill, but religion (the good religions) teaches us the sanctity of life, so if we had to kill a single person in order to save thousands–then religion allows us to make that choice where the law does not.

The law is the government’s way of trying to instill values, but they simply cannot do it with rules alone. The government would hope that if you follow the law, then you will see why it works and learn your values that way–but it is doing it all backwards. With peace-loving and good religions that do not condone killing, such as any religion “other than” the Arian brotherhood, Islam, and Satanism, you are taught why something is wrong so that you may then choose what you do. Good religions that do not condone killing say you can break the law because you have choices, but it first gives you the reasons and values needed to make the right decision (which usually involves following the law).

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

Free Essays Download
Writing Tools List
Proofreading Services
Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

Faith, Reason, and Culture

An Essay in Fundamental Theology

© 2020
George Karuvelil 0

Faculty of Philosophy, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth, Pune, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Explores the rationality of faith in the contemporary world

Addresses multiple issues of contemporary culture, including: secularism and atheism, science-religion relations, religious diversity and inter-religious dialogue

Conceives fundamental theology as a discipline which seeks religious truth in the midst of diverse perspectives

2658 Accesses

2 Citations

Table of contents

About this book

Authors and affiliations, about the author, bibliographic information.

Publish with us

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents(11 chapters)

Front matter, reason: the multi-coloured chameleon.

George Karuvelil

Religious Diversity and Theology

Science and religion: some parables and models, science and religion: autonomy and conflict, communication, culture, and fundamental theology, justification: beyond uniformitarianism, perception: its nature and justification, nature mysticism and god, religious diversity, christian faith, and truth, pulling together, back matter.

apologetics
Gerald O’Collins

“The effort developed by Karuvelil is impressive, without a doubt, and – from my point of view – this is clearly a theological essay that brings more fresh air and a much needed renovation to FT. … Scientific reason is not everything, but neither can we ignore the objections of such people when it comes to practicing the healthy dialogue to which Karuvelil’s impressive work invites us.” (Lluis Oviedo, ESSSAT News & Reviews, March, 2021)

“George Karuvelil’s mastery of epistemology has enabled him to make a truly major contribution: he has justified brilliantly the essential rationality of religion and theology. This book has re-established a philosophical base for fundamental or foundational theology. Only a scholar with such epistemological expertise could have achieved this remarkable break through and elucidated a true and convincing starting-point for theology.” — Gerald O’Collins, SJ, former dean of theology, Gregorian University, Italy

“Faith, Reason, and Culture is an impressive and comprehensive engagement with some of the most difficult questions facing us today on religion and its role in society and the academy. Karuvelil robustly engages a wide range of classical and contemporary Western scholars who debate religion’s place and role in society, while remaining ever attentive to his home context in India. He is conscientious in considering a wide range of views, yet steadfast in his defense of religion’s enduring importance and relevance in every contemporary debate. This book will open doors on the philosophy of religions and fundamental theology for beginners, while yet too catching the attention of established scholars in the field.” — Francis X. Clooney, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard University, USA

“There have been many books on faith and reason but none comes close to the erudition and comprehensiveness that characterize this book. Karuvelil’s resourcefulness in philosophy and his long experience in interreligious dialogue enable him to explore important theological themes in original and highly informative ways. Thoroughly researched and rigorously argued, this book will prove indispensable for both theologians and philosophers who want to explore new frontiers in in the area of faith, reason and culture.” — Louis Caruana SJ , Dean, Faculty of Philosophy, Pontifical Gregorian University, Italy

“George Karuvelil’s Faith, Reason, and Culture: An Essay in Fundamental Theology is a real tour de force, which will delight those interested to explore the complex issue of the rationality of religious belief. Integrating Kierkegaard’s insistence on religious belief as existential concern and adroitly pressing into service Wittgenstein’s concepts of ‘language game’ and ‘grammar,’ Dr. Karuvelil has developed a convincing case to justify religious belief. In this process, he has built on the work of contemporary philosophers whose analyses he has found fertile while not mincing words in his critique of authors whose thinking he judges has gone astray, being particularly severe on those who are wedded to scientism as the last word in human rationality. Lucid writing, helpful introductions and summaries and numerous examples make this book intelligible to non-professionals while professionals will find the acute analysis and meticulous argumentation worth careful attention.” — Lisbert D'Souza , Emeritus Reader in Philosophy, Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth (Pontifical Athenaeum), Pune, India; former Assistant to the Superior General of the Society of Jesus.

“With skillful and patient archeology of the divide between reason and faith, especially in modernity and Western thinkers, resulting in severe harm for both, George Karuvelil convincingly shows that to successfully meet the challenges of contemporary religious pluralism we must, as Pope John Paul II says, breathe with both lungs and fly with both wings, namely, reason and faith. With this work, Karuvelil establishes himself as a first-class authority on fundamental theology. At a time when truth is dismissed as ‘alternative facts,’ Karuvelil's robust confidence in both reason and faith is all the more needed and urgent.” — Peter C. Phan , The Ignacio Ellacuria , S.J. Chair of Catholic Social Thought, Georgetown University, USA

“In its grand sweep of the history of philosophy, theology, and modernity, the book provides a remarkably open access to a theological project that is rationally based, and addressing the intellectual debates of our contemporary times. The author opens up a splendid panorama of reason and critically challenges its Procrustean curtailment by scientism and positivism. The book is deep, and at the same time, highly engaging and accessible to a wider readership, thanks to its clarity of thought, expression and cogency.” — Felix Wilfred , Emeritus Professor, University of Madras, India

George Karuvelil received his PhD from the University of Delhi and has a background in philosophy and theology. He is the editor of Romancing the Sacred (2007) and was the editor of Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies .

Book Title : Faith, Reason, and Culture

Book Subtitle : An Essay in Fundamental Theology

Authors : George Karuvelil

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45815-7

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan Cham

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy , Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-45814-0 Published: 25 July 2020

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-45817-1 Published: 26 July 2021

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-45815-7 Published: 24 July 2020

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XVII, 402

Number of Illustrations : 8 b/w illustrations

Topics : Christian Theology , Philosophy of Religion

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

13.1 What Is Religion?

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Distinguish between religion, spirituality, and worldview.
Describe the connections between witchcraft, sorcery, and magic.
Identify differences between deities and spirits.
Identify shamanism.
Describe the institutionalization of religion in state societies.

Defining Religion, Spirituality, and Worldview

An anthropological inquiry into religion can easily become muddled and hazy because religion encompasses intangible things such as values, ideas, beliefs, and norms. It can be helpful to establish some shared signposts. Two researchers whose work has focused on religion offer definitions that point to diverse poles of thought about the subject. Frequently, anthropologists bookend their understanding of religion by citing these well-known definitions.

French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) utilized an anthropological approach to religion in his study of totemism among Indigenous Australian peoples in the early 20th century. In his work The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915), he argues that social scientists should begin with what he calls “simple religions” in their attempts to understand the structure and function of belief systems in general. His definition of religion takes an empirical approach and identifies key elements of a religion: “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (47). This definition breaks down religion into the components of beliefs, practices, and a social organization—what a shared group of people believe and do.

The other signpost used within anthropology to make sense of religion was crafted by American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006) in his work The Interpretation of Cultures (1973). Geertz’s definition takes a very different approach: “A religion is: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic” (90). Geertz’s definition, which is complex and holistic and addresses intangibles such as emotions and feelings, presents religion as a different paradigm , or overall model, for how we see systems of belief. Geertz views religion as an impetus to view and act upon the world in a certain manner. While still acknowledging that religion is a shared endeavor, Geertz focuses on religion’s role as a potent cultural symbol. Elusive, ambiguous, and hard to define, religion in Geertz’s conception is primarily a feeling that motivates and unites groups of people with shared beliefs. In the next section, we will examine the meanings of symbols and how they function within cultures, which will deepen your understanding of Geertz’s definition. For Geertz, religion is intensely symbolic.

When anthropologists study religion, it can be helpful to consider both of these definitions because religion includes such varied human constructs and experiences as social structures, sets of beliefs, a feeling of awe, and an aura of mystery. While different religious groups and practices sometimes extend beyond what can be covered by a simple definition, we can broadly define religion as a shared system of beliefs and practices regarding the interaction of natural and supernatural phenomena. And yet as soon as we ascribe a meaning to religion, we must distinguish some related concepts, such as spirituality and worldview.

Over the last few years, a growing number of Americans have been choosing to define themselves as spiritual rather than religious. A 2017 Pew Research Center study found that 27 percent of Americans identify as “spiritual but not religious,” which is 8 percentage points higher than it was in 2012 (Lipka and Gecewicz 2017). There are different factors that can distinguish religion and spirituality, and individuals will define and use these terms in specific ways; however, in general, while religion usually refers to shared affiliation with a particular structure or organization, spirituality normally refers to loosely structured beliefs and feelings about relationships between the natural and supernatural worlds. Spirituality can be very adaptable to changing circumstances and is often built upon an individual’s perception of the surrounding environment.

Many Americans with religious affiliation also use the term spirituality and distinguish it from their religion. Pew found in 2017 that 48 percent of respondents said they were both religious and spiritual. Pew also found that 27 percent of people say religion is very important to them (Lipka and Gecewicz 2017).

Another trend pertaining to religion in the United States is the growth of those defining themselves as nones , or people with no religious affiliation. In a 2014 survey of 35,000 Americans from 50 states, Pew found that nearly a quarter of Americans assigned themselves to this category (Pew Research Center 2015). The percentage of adults assigning themselves to the “none” category had grown substantially, from 16 percent in 2007 to 23 percent in 2014; among millennials, the percentage of nones was even higher, at 35 percent (Lipka 2015). In a follow-up survey, participants were asked to identity their major reasons for choosing to be nonaffiliated; the most common responses pointed to the growing politicization of American churches and a more critical and questioning stance toward the institutional structure of all religions (Pew Research Center 2018). It is important, however, to point out that nones are not the same as agnostics or atheists. Nones may hold traditional and/or nontraditional religious beliefs outside of membership in a religious institution. Agnosticism is the belief that God or the divine is unknowable and therefore skepticism of belief is appropriate, and atheism is a stance that denies the existence of a god or collection of gods. Nones, agnostics, and atheists can hold spiritual beliefs, however. When anthropologists study religion, it is very important for them to define the terms they are using because these terms can have different meanings when used outside of academic studies. In addition, the meaning of terms may change. As the social and political landscape in a society changes, it affects all social institutions, including religion.

Even those who consider themselves neither spiritual nor religious hold secular, or nonreligious, beliefs that structure how they view themselves and the world they live in. The term worldview refers to a person’s outlook or orientation; it is a learned perspective, which has both individual and collective components, on the nature of life itself. Individuals frequently conflate and intermingle their religious and spiritual beliefs and their worldviews as they experience change within their lives. When studying religion, anthropologists need to remain aware of these various dimensions of belief. The word religion is not always adequate to identify an individual’s belief systems.

Like all social institutions, religion evolves within and across time and cultures—even across early human species! Adapting to changes in population size and the reality of people’s daily lives, religions and religious/spiritual practices reflect life on the ground . Interestingly, though, while some institutions (such as economics) tend to change radically from one era to another, often because of technological changes, religion tends to be more viscous , meaning it tends to change at a much slower pace and mix together various beliefs and practices. While religion can be a factor in promoting rapid social change, it more commonly changes slowly and retains older features while adding new ones. In effect, religion contains within it many of its earlier iterations and can thus be quite complex.

Witchcraft, Sorcery, and Magic

People in Western cultures too often think of religion as a belief system associated with a church, temple, or mosque, but religion is much more diverse. In the 1960s, anthropologists typically used an evolutionary model for religion that associated less structured religious systems with simple societies and more complex forms of religion with more complex political systems. Anthropologists noticed that as populations grew, all forms of organization—political, economic, social, and religious—became more complex as well. For example, with the emergence of tribal societies, religion expanded to become not only a system of healing and connection with both animate and inanimate things in the environment but also a mechanism for addressing desire and conflict. Witchcraft and sorcery, both forms of magic, are more visible in larger-scale, more complex societies.

The terms witchcraft and sorcery are variously defined across disciplines and from one researcher to another, yet there is some agreement about common elements associated with each. Witchcraft involves the use of intangible (not material) means to cause a change in circumstances to another person. It is normally associated with practices such as incantations, spells, blessings, and other types of formulaic language that, when pronounced, causes a transformation. Sorcery is similar to witchcraft but involves the use of material elements to cause a change in circumstances to another person. It is normally associated with such practices as magical bundles, love potions, and any specific action that uses another person’s personal leavings (such as their hair, nails, or even excreta). While some scholars argue that witchcraft and sorcery are “dark,” negative, antisocial actions that seek to punish others, ethnographic research is filled with examples of more ambiguous or even positive uses as well. Cultural anthropologist Alma Gottlieb , who did fieldwork among the Beng people of Côte d’Ivoire in Africa, describes how the king that the Beng choose as their leader must always be a witch himself, not because of his ability to harm others but because his mystical powers allow him to protect the Beng people that he rules (2008). His knowledge and abilities allow him to be a capable ruler.

Some scholars argue that witchcraft and sorcery may be later developments in religion and not part of the earliest rituals because they can be used to express social conflict. What is the relationship between conflict, religion, and political organization? Consider what you learned in Social Inequalities . As a society’s population rises, individuals within that society have less familiarity and personal experience with each other and must instead rely on family reputation or rank as the basis for establishing trust. Also, as social diversity increases, people find themselves interacting with those who have different behaviors and beliefs from their own. Frequently, we trust those who are most like ourselves, and diversity can create a sense of mistrust. This sense of not knowing or understanding the people one lives, works, and trades with creates social stress and forces people to put themselves into what can feel like risky situations when interacting with one another. In such a setting, witchcraft and sorcery provide a feeling of security and control over other people. Historically, as populations increased and sociocultural institutions became larger and more complex, religion evolved to provide mechanisms such as witchcraft and sorcery that helped individuals establish a sense of social control over their lives.

Magic is essential to both witchcraft and sorcery, and the principles of magic are part of every religion. The anthropological study of magic is considered to have begun in the late 19th century with the 1890 publication of The Golden Bough , by Scottish social anthropologist Sir James G. Frazer . This work, published in several volumes, details the rituals and beliefs of a diverse range of societies, all collected by Frazer from the accounts of missionaries and travelers. Frazer was an armchair anthropologist, meaning that he did not practice fieldwork. In his work, he provided one of the earliest definitions of magic, describing it as “a spurious system of natural law as well as a fallacious guide of conduct” (Frazer [1922] 1925, 11). A more precise and neutral definition depicts magic as a supposed system of natural law whose practice causes a transformation to occur. In the natural world—the world of our senses and the things we hear, see, smell, taste, and touch—we operate with evidence of observable cause and effect. Magic is a system in which the actions or causes are not always empirical. Speaking a spell or other magical formula does not provide observable (empirical) effects. For practitioners of magic, however, this abstract cause and effect is just as consequential and just as true.

Frazer refers to magic as “sympathetic magic” because it is based on the idea of sympathy, or common feeling, and he argued that there are two principles of sympathetic magic: the law of similarity and the law of contagion. The law of similarity is the belief that a magician can create a desired change by imitating that change. This is associated with actions or charms that mimic or look like the effects one desires, such as the use of an effigy that looks like another person or even the Venus figurine associated with the Upper Paleolithic period, whose voluptuous female body parts may have been used as part of a fertility ritual. By taking actions on the stand-in figure, the magician is able to cause an effect on the person believed to be represented by this figure. The law of contagion is the belief that things that have once been in contact with each other remain connected always, such as a piece of jewelry owned by someone you love, a locket of hair or baby tooth kept as a keepsake, or personal leavings to be used in acts of sorcery.

This classification of magic broadens our understanding of how magic can be used and how common it is across all religions. Prayers and special mortuary artifacts ( grave goods ) indicate that the concept of magic is an innately human practice and not associated solely with tribal societies. In most cultures and across religious traditions, people bury or cremate loved ones with meaningful clothing, jewelry, or even a photo. These practices and sentimental acts are magical bonds and connections among acts, artifacts, and people. Even prayers and shamanic journeying (a form of metaphysical travel) to spirits and deities, practiced in almost all religious traditions, are magical contracts within people’s belief systems that strengthen practitioners’ faith. Instead of seeing magic as something outside of religion that diminishes seriousness, anthropologists see magic as a profound human act of faith.

Supernatural Forces and Beings

As stated earlier, religion typically regards the interaction of natural and supernatural phenomena. Put simply, a supernatural force is a figure or energy that does not follow natural law. In other words, it is nonempirical and cannot be measured or observed by normal means. Religious practices rely on contact and interaction with a wide range of supernatural forces of varying degrees of complexity and specificity.

In many religious traditions, there are both supernatural deities, or gods who are named and have the ability to change human fortunes, and spirits, who are less powerful and not always identified by name. Spirit or spirits can be diffuse and perceived as a field of energy or an unnamed force.

Practitioners of witchcraft and sorcery manipulate a supposed supernatural force that is often referred to by the term mana , first identified in Polynesia among the Maori of New Zealand ( mana is a Maori word). Anthropologists see a similar supposed sacred energy field in many different religious traditions and now use this word to refer to that energy force. Mana is an impersonal (unnamed and unidentified) force that can adhere for varying periods of time to people or animate and inanimate objects to make them sacred. One example is in the biblical story that appears in Mark 5:25–30, in which a woman suffering an illness simply touches Jesus’s cloak and is healed. Jesus asks, “Who touched my clothes?” because he recognizes that some of this force has passed from him to the woman who was ill in order to heal her. Many Christians see the person of Jesus as sacred and holy from the time of his baptism by the Holy Spirit. Christian baptism in many traditions is meant as a duplication or repetition of Christ’s baptism.

There are also named and known supernatural deities. A deity is a god or goddess. Most often conceived as humanlike, gods (male) and goddesses (female) are typically named beings with individual personalities and interests. Monotheistic religions focus on a single named god or goddess, and polytheistic religions are built around a pantheon, or group, of gods and/or goddesses, each usually specializing in a specific sort of behavior or action. And there are spirits , which tend to be associated with very specific (and narrower) activities, such as earth spirits or guardian spirits (or angels). Some spirits emanate from or are connected directly to humans, such as ghosts and ancestor spirits , which may be attached to specific individuals, families, or places. In some patrilineal societies, ancestor spirits require a great deal of sacrifice from the living. This veneration of the dead can consume large quantities of resources. In the Philippines, the practice of venerating the ancestor spirits involves elaborate house shrines, altars, and food offerings. In central Madagascar, the Merino people practice a regular “turning of the bones,” called famidihana . Every five to seven years, a family will disinter some of their deceased family members and replace their burial clothing with new, expensive silk garments as a form of remembrance and to honor all of their ancestors. In both of these cases, ancestor spirits are believed to continue to have an effect on their living relatives, and failure to carry out these rituals is believed to put the living at risk of harm from the dead.

Religious Specialists

Religious groups typically have some type of leadership, whether formal or informal. Some religious leaders occupy a specific role or status within a larger organization, representing the rules and regulations of the institution, including norms of behavior. In anthropology, these individuals are called priests , even though they may have other titles within their religious groups. Anthropology defines priests as full-time practitioners, meaning they occupy a religious rank at all times, whether or not they are officiating at rituals or ceremonies, and they have leadership over groups of people. They serve as mediators or guides between individuals or groups of people and the deity or deities. In religion-specific terms, anthropological priests may be called by various names, including titles such as priest, pastor, preacher, teacher, imam (Islam), and rabbi (Judaism).

Another category of specialists is prophets . These individuals are associated with religious change and transformation, calling for a renewal of beliefs or a restructuring of the status quo. Their leadership is usually temporary or indirect, and sometimes the prophet is on the margins of a larger religious organization. German sociologist Max Weber (1947) identified prophets as having charisma , a personality trait that conveys authority:

Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These as such are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. (358–359)

A third type of specialist is shamans . Shamans are part-time religious specialists who work with clients to address very specific and individual needs by making direct contact with deities or supernatural forces. While priests will officiate at recurring ritual events, a shaman, much like a medical psychologist, addresses each individual need. One exception to this is the shaman’s role in subsistence, usually hunting. In societies where the shaman is responsible for “calling up the animals” so that hunters will have success, the ritual may be calendrical , or occurring on a cyclical basis. While shamans are medical and religious specialists within shamanic societies, there are other religions that practice forms of shamanism as part of their own belief systems. Sometimes, these shamanic practitioners will be known by terms such as pastor or preacher , or even layperson . And some religious specialists serve as both part-time priests and part-time shamans, occupying more than one role as needed within a group of practitioners. You will read more about shamanism in the next section.

One early form of religion is shamanism , a practice of divination and healing that involves soul travel, also called shamanic journeying, to connect natural and supernatural realms in nonlinear time. Associated initially with small-scale societies, shamanic practices are now known to be embedded in many of the world’s religions. In some cultures, shamans are part-time specialists, usually drawn into the practice by a “calling” and trained in the necessary skills and rituals though an apprenticeship. In other cultures, all individuals are believed to be capable of shamanic journeying if properly trained. By journeying—an act frequently initiated by dance, trance, drumbeat, song, or hallucinogenic substances—the shaman is able to consult with a spiritual world populated by supernatural figures and deceased ancestors. The term itself, šamán , meaning “one who knows,” is an Evenki word, originating among the Evenk people of northern Siberia. Shamanism, found all over the world, was first studied by anthropologists in Siberia.

While shamanism is a healing practice, it conforms to the anthropological definition of religion as a shared set of beliefs and practices pertaining to the natural and supernatural. Cultures and societies that publicly affirm shamanism as a predominant and generally accepted practice often are referred to as shamanic cultures . Shamanism and shamanic activity, however, are found within most religions. The world’s two dominant mainstream religions both contain a type of shamanistic practice: the laying on of hands in Christianity, in which a mystical healing and blessing is passed from one person to another, and the mystical Islamic practice of Sufism, in which the practitioner, called a dervish, dances by whirling faster and faster in order to reach a trance state of communing with the divine. There are numerous other shared religious beliefs and practices among different religions besides shamanism. Given the physical and social evolution of our species, it is likely that we all share aspects of a fundamental religious orientation and that religious changes are added on to, rather than used to replace, earlier practices such as shamanism.

Indigenous shamanism continues to be a significant force for healing and prophecy today and is the predominant religious mode in small-scale, subsistence-based societies, such as bands of gatherers and hunters. Shamanism is valued by hunters as an intuitive way to locate wild animals, often depicted as “getting into the mind of the animal.” Shamanism is also valued as a means of healing, allowing individuals to discern and address sources of physical and social illness that may be affecting their health. One of the best-studied shamanic healing practices is that of the !Kung San in Central Africa. When individuals in that society suffer physical or socioemotional distress, they practice n/um tchai , a medicine dance, to draw up spiritual forces within themselves that can be used for shamanic self-healing (Marshall [1969] 2009).

Shamanistic practices remain an important part of the culture of modern Inuit people in the Canadian Arctic, particularly their practices pertaining to whale hunting. Although these traditional hunts were prohibited for a time, Inuit people were able to legally resume them in 1994. In a recent study of Inuit whaling communities in the Canadian territory of Nunavut, cultural anthropologists Frédéric Laugrand and Jarich Oosten (2013) found that although hunting technology has changed—whaling spears now include a grenade that, when aimed properly, allows for a quick and more humane death—many shamanistic beliefs and social practices pertaining to the hunt endure. The sharing of maktak or muktuk (whale skin and blubber) with elders is believed to lift their spirits and prolong their lives by connecting them to their ancestors and memories of their youth, the communal sharing of whale meat connects families to each other, and the relationship between hunter and hunted mystically sustains the populations of both. Inuit hunters believe that the whale “gives itself” to the hunter in order to establish this relationship, and when the hunter and community gratefully and humbly consume the catch, this ties the whales to the people and preserves them both. While Laugrand and Oosten found that most Inuit communities practice modern-day Christianity, the shamanistic values of their ancestors continue to play a major role in their understanding of both the whale hunt and what it means to be Inuit today. Their practice and understanding of religion incorporate both the church and their ancestral beliefs.

Above all, shamanism reflects the principles and practice of mutuality and balance, the belief that all living things are connected to each other and can have an effect on each other. This is a value that reverberates through almost all other religious systems as well. Concepts such as stewardship (caring for and nurturing resources), charity (providing for the needs of others), and justice (concern and respect for others and their rights) are all valued in shamanism.

The Institutionalization of Religion

Shamanism is classified as animism , a worldview in which spiritual agency is assigned to all things, including natural elements such as rocks and trees. Sometimes associated with the idea of dual souls—a day soul and a night soul, the latter of which can wander in dreams—and sometimes with unnamed and disembodied spirits believed to be associated with living and nonliving things, animism was at first understood by anthropologists as a primitive step toward more complex religions. In his work Primitive Culture (1871), British anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor , considered the first academic anthropologist, identified animism as a proto-religion, an evolutionary beginning point for all religions. As population densities increased and societies developed more complex forms of social organization, religion mirrored many of these changes.

With the advent of state societies, religion became institutionalized. As population densities increased and urban areas emerged, the structure and function of religion shifted into a bureaucracy, known as a state religion . State religions are formal institutions with full-time administrators (e.g., priests, pastors, rabbis, imams), a set doctrine of beliefs and regulations, and a policy of growth by seeking new practitioners through conversion. While state religions continued to exhibit characteristics of earlier forms, they were now structured as organizations with a hierarchy, including functionaries at different levels with different specializations. Religion was now administered as well as practiced. Similar to the use of mercenaries as paid soldiers in a state army, bureaucratic religions include paid positions that may not require subscribing to the belief system itself. Examples of early state religions include the pantheons of Egypt and Greece. Today, the most common state religions are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

Rather than part-time shamans, tribal and state religions are often headed by full-time religious leaders who administer higher levels within the religious bureaucracy. With institutionalization, religion began to develop formalized doctrines , or sets of specific and usually rigid principles or teachings, that would be applied through the codification of a formal system of laws. And, unlike earlier religious forms, state religions are usually defined not by birthright but by conversion. Using proselytization , a recruitment practice in which members actively seek converts to the group, state religions are powerful institutions in society. They bring diverse groups of people together and establish common value systems.

There are two common arrangements between political states and state religions. In some instances, such as contemporary Iran, the religious institution and the state are one, and religious leaders head the political structure. In other societies, there is an explicit separation between religion and state. The separation has been handled differently across nation-states. In some states, the political government supports a state religion (or several) as the official religion(s). In some of these cases, the religious institution will play a role in political decision-making from local to national levels. In other state societies with a separation between religion and state, religious institutions will receive favors, such as subsidies, from state governments. This may include tax or military exemptions and privileged access to resources. It is this latter arrangement that we see in the United States, where institutions such as the Department of Defense and the IRS keep lists of officially recognized religions with political and tax-exempt status.

Among the approximately 200 sovereign nation-states worldwide, there are many variations in the relationship between state and religion, including societies that have political religions, where the state or state rulers are considered divine and holy. In North Korea today, people practice an official policy of juche , which means self-reliance and independence. A highly nationalist policy, it has religious overtones, including reverence and obeisance to the state leader (Kim Jong Un) and unquestioning allegiance to the North Korean state. An extreme form of nationalism, juche functions as a political religion with the government and leader seen as deity and divine. Unlike in a theocracy, where the religious structure has political power, in North Korea, the political structure is the practiced religion.

Historically, relationships between religious institution and state have been extremely complex, with power arrangements shifting and changing over time. Today, Christian fundamentalism is playing an increasingly political role in U.S. society. Since its bureaucratization, religion has had a political role in almost every nation-state. In many state societies, religious institutions serve as charity organizations to meet the basic needs of many citizens, as educational institutions offering both mainstream and alternative pedagogies, and as community organizations to help mobilize groups of people for specific actions. Although some states—such as Cuba, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union—have declared atheism as their official policy during certain historical periods, religion has never fully disappeared in any of them. Religious groups, however, may face varying levels of oppression within state societies. The Uighurs are a mostly Muslim ethnic group of some 10 million people in northwestern China. Since 2017, when Chinese president Xi Jinping issued an order that all religions in China should be Chinese in their orientation, the Uighurs have faced mounting levels of oppression, including discrimination in state services. There have been recent accusations of mass sterilizations and genocide by the Chinese government against this ethnic minority (see BBC News 2021). During periods of state oppression, religion tends to break up into smaller units practiced at a local or even household level.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, Marjorie M. Snipes
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Anthropology
Publication date: Feb 23, 2022
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/13-1-what-is-religion

© Dec 20, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

8 in 10 americans say religion is losing influence in public life, few see biden or trump as especially religious.

Pew Research Center conducted this survey to explore Americans’ attitudes about religion’s role in public life, including politics in a presidential election year.

For this report, we surveyed 12,693 respondents from Feb. 13 to 25, 2024. Most of the respondents (10,642) are members of the American Trends Panel, an online survey panel recruited through national random sampling of residential addresses, which gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection.

The remaining respondents (2,051) are members of three other panels, the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, the NORC Amerispeak panel and the SSRS opinion panel. All three are national survey panels recruited through random sampling (not “opt-in” polls). We used these additional panels to ensure that the survey would have enough Jewish and Muslim respondents to be able to report on their views.

The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education, religious affiliation and other categories.

For more, refer to the ATP’s Methodology and the Methodology for this report. Read the questions used in this report .

Chart shows the share of Americans who say religion’s influence is declining is as high as it’s ever been

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 80% of U.S. adults say religion’s role in American life is shrinking – a percentage that’s as high as it’s ever been in our surveys.

Most Americans who say religion’s influence is shrinking are not happy about it. Overall, 49% of U.S. adults say both that religion is losing influence and that this is a bad thing. An additional 8% of U.S. adults think religion’s influence is growing and that this is a good thing.

Together, a combined 57% of U.S adults – a clear majority – express a positive view of religion’s influence on American life.

Chart shows 49% of Americans say religion’s influence is declining and that this is a bad thing

The survey also finds that about half of U.S. adults say it’s “very” or “somewhat” important to them to have a president who has strong religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are different from their own. But relatively few Americans view either of the leading presidential candidates as very religious: 13% of Americans say they think President Joe Biden is very religious, and just 4% say this about former President Donald Trump.

Overall, there are widespread signs of unease with religion’s trajectory in American life. This dissatisfaction is not just among religious Americans. Rather, many religious and nonreligious Americans say they feel that their religious beliefs put them at odds with mainstream culture, with the people around them and with the other side of the political spectrum. For example:

Chart shows a growing share of Americans feel their religious views are at odds with the mainstream

48% of U.S. adults say there’s “a great deal” of or “some” conflict between their religious beliefs and mainstream American culture, up from 42% in 2020.
29% say they think of themselves as religious minorities, up from 24% in 2020.
41% say it’s best to avoid discussing religion at all if someone disagrees with you, up from 33% in 2019.
72% of religiously unaffiliated adults – those who identify, religiously, as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – say conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to control religion in the government and public schools; 63% of Christians say the same about secular liberals.

These are among the key findings of a new Pew Research Center survey, conducted Feb. 13-25, 2024, among a nationally representative sample of 12,693 U.S. adults.

This report examines:

Religion’s role in public life
U.S. presidential candidates and their religious engagement
Christianity’s place in politics, and “Christian nationalism”

The survey also finds wide partisan gaps on questions about the proper role for religion in society, with Republicans more likely than Democrats to favor religious influence in governance and public life. For instance:

42% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say that when the Bible and the will of the people conflict, the Bible should have more influence on U.S. laws than the will of the people. Just 16% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say this.
21% of Republicans and GOP leaners say the federal government should declare Christianity the official religion of the United States, compared with 7% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Moral and religious qualities in a president

Almost all Americans (94%) say it is “very” or “somewhat” important to have a president who personally lives a moral and ethical life. And a majority (64%) say it’s important to have a president who stands up for people with their religious beliefs.

About half of U.S. adults (48%) say it is important for the president to hold strong religious beliefs. Fewer (37%) say it’s important for the president to have the same religious beliefs as their own.

Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to value religious qualities in a president, and Christians are more likely than the religiously unaffiliated to do so. For example:

Republicans and GOP leaners are twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to say it is important to have a president who has the same religious beliefs they do (51% vs. 25%).
70% of White evangelical Protestants say it is important to have a president who shares their religious beliefs. Just 11% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say this.

Chart shows Nearly all U.S. adults say it is important to have a president who personally lives a moral, ethical life

Views of Biden, Trump and their religious engagement

Relatively few Americans think of Biden or Trump as “very” religious. Indeed, even most Republicans don’t think Trump is very religious, and even most Democrats don’t think Biden is very religious.

6% of Republicans and GOP leaners say Trump is very religious, while 44% say he is “somewhat” religious. Nearly half (48%) say he is “not too” or “not at all” religious.
23% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say Biden is very religious, while 55% say he is somewhat religious. And 21% say he is not too or not at all religious.

Chart shows Few Americans see Biden, Trump as very religious

Though they don’t think Trump is very religious himself, most Republicans and people in religious groups that tend to favor the Republican Party do think he stands up at least to some extent for people with their religious beliefs. Two-thirds of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP (67%) say Trump stands up for people with their religious beliefs “a great deal,” “quite a bit” or “some.” About the same share of White evangelical Protestants (69%) say this about Trump.

Similarly, 60% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, as well as 73% of Jewish Americans and 60% of Black Protestants, say Biden stands up for people with their religious beliefs a great deal, quite a bit or some.

Chart shows About 7 in 10 White evangelical Protestants say Trump stands up for people with their religious beliefs at least to ‘some’ extent

Overall, views of both Trump and Biden are generally unfavorable.

White evangelical Protestants – a largely Republican group – stand out as having particularly favorable views of Trump (67%) and unfavorable views of Biden (86%).
Black Protestants and Jewish Americans – largely Democratic groups – stand out for having favorable views of Biden and unfavorable views of Trump.

Chart shows Views of Biden and Trump are divided along religious and partisan lines

Views on trying to control religious values in the government and schools

Americans are almost equally split on whether conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to push their religious values in the government and public schools, as well as on whether secular liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religious values out of these institutions.

Most religiously unaffiliated Americans (72%) and Democrats (72%) say conservative Christians have gone too far. And most Christians (63%) and Republicans (76%) say secular liberals have gone too far.

Chart shows Many Americans think conservative Christians, secular liberals have gone too far in trying to control religion in government and public schools

Christianity’s place in politics, and Christian nationalism

In recent years, “Christian nationalism” has received a great deal of attention as an ideology that some critics have said could threaten American democracy .

Table shows Americans’ views of Christian nationalism have been stable since 2022

Despite growing news coverage of Christian nationalism – including reports of political leaders who seem to endorse the concept – the new survey shows that there has been no change in the share of Americans who have heard of Christian nationalism over the past year and a half. Similarly, the new survey finds no change in how favorably U.S. adults view Christian nationalism.

Overall, 45% say they have heard or read about Christian nationalism, including 25% who also have an unfavorable view of it and 5% who have a favorable view of it. Meanwhile, 54% of Americans say they haven’t heard of Christian nationalism at all.

One element often associated with Christian nationalism is the idea that church and state should not be separated, despite the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The survey finds that about half of Americans (49%) say the Bible should have “a great deal” of or “some” influence on U.S. laws, while another half (51%) say it should have “not much” or “no influence.” And 28% of U.S. adults say the Bible should have more influence than the will of the people if the two conflict. These numbers have remained virtually unchanged over the past four years.

Chart shows 28% of Americans say the Bible should prevail if Bible and the people’s will conflict

In the new survey, 16% of U.S. adults say the government should stop enforcing the separation of church and state. This is little changed since 2021.

Chart shows Views on church-state separation and the U.S. as a Christian nation

In response to a separate question, 13% of U.S. adults say the federal government should declare Christianity the official religion of the U.S., and 44% say the government should not declare the country a Christian nation but should promote Christian moral values. Meanwhile, 39% say the government should not elevate Christianity in either way. 1

Overall, 3% of U.S. adults say the Bible should have more influence on U.S. laws than the will of the people; and that the government should stop enforcing separation of church and state; and that Christianity should be declared the country’s official religion. And 13% of U.S. adults endorse two of these three statements. Roughly one-fifth of the public (22%) expresses one of these three views that are often associated with Christian nationalism. The majority (62%) expresses none.

Guide to this report

The remainder of this report describes these findings in additional detail. Chapter 1 focuses on the public’s perceptions of religion’s role in public life. Chapter 2 examines views of presidential candidates and their religious engagement. And Chapter 3 focuses on Christian nationalism and views of the U.S. as a Christian nation.

The share saying that the government should declare Christianity the official national religion (13%) is almost identical to the share who said the government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation in a March 2021 survey that asked a similar question (15%). ↩

Sign up for our Religion newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Report Materials

Table of contents, 5 facts about religion and americans’ views of donald trump, u.s. christians more likely than ‘nones’ to say situation at the border is a crisis, from businesses and banks to colleges and churches: americans’ views of u.s. institutions, most u.s. parents pass along their religion and politics to their children, growing share of americans see the supreme court as ‘friendly’ toward religion, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

The One Idea That Could Save American Democracy

By Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Hunt-Hendrix are political organizers and the authors of the book “Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea.”

These days, we often hear that democracy is on the ballot. And there’s a truth to that: Winning elections is critical, especially as liberal and progressive forces try to fend off radical right-wing movements. But the democratic crisis that our society faces will not be solved by voting alone. We need to do more than defeat Donald Trump and his allies — we need to make cultivating solidarity a national priority.

For years, solidarity’s strongest associations have been with the left and the labor movement — a term invoked at protests and on picket lines. But its roots are much deeper, and its potential implications far more profound, than we typically assume. Though we rarely speak about it as such, solidarity is a concept as fundamental to democracy as its better-known cousins: equality, freedom and justice. Solidarity is simultaneously a bond that holds society together and a force that propels it forward. After all, when people feel connected, they are more willing to work together, to share resources and to have one another’s backs. Solidarity weaves us into a larger and more resilient “we” through the precious and powerful sense that even though we are different, our lives and our fates are connected.

We have both spent years working as organizers and activists . If our experience has taught us anything, it is that a sense of connection and mutualism is rarely spontaneous. It must be nurtured and sustained. Without robust and effective organizations and institutions to cultivate and maintain solidarity, it weakens and democracy falters. We become more atomized and isolated, suspicious and susceptible to misinformation, more disengaged and cynical, and easily pitted against one another.

Democracy’s opponents know this. That’s why they invest huge amounts of energy and resources to sabotage transformative, democratic solidarity and to nurture exclusionary and reactionary forms of group identity. Enraged at a decade of social movements and the long-overdue revival of organized labor, right-wing strategists and their corporate backers have redoubled their efforts to divide and conquer the American public, inflaming group resentments in order to restore traditional social hierarchies and ensure that plutocrats maintain their hold on wealth and power. In white papers, stump speeches and podcasts, conservative ideologues have laid out their vision for capturing the state and using it as a tool to remake our country in their image.

If we do not prioritize solidarity, this dangerous and anti-democratic project will succeed. Far more than just a slogan or hashtag, solidarity can orient us toward a future worth fighting for, providing the basis of a credible and galvanizing plan for democratic renewal. Instead of the 20th-century ideal of a welfare state, we should try to imagine a solidarity state.

We urgently need a countervision of what government can and should be, and how public resources and infrastructure can be deployed to foster social connection and repair the social fabric so that democracy can have a chance not just to limp along, but to flourish. Solidarity, here, is both a goal worth reaching toward and the method of building the power to achieve it. It is both means and ends, the forging of social bonds so that we can become strong enough to shift policy together.

Historically, the question of solidarity has been raised during volatile junctures like the one we are living through. Contemporary conceptions of solidarity first took form after the democratic revolutions of the 18th century and over the course of the Industrial Revolution. As kings were deposed and the church’s role as a moral authority waned, philosophers and citizens wondered how society could cohere without a monarch or god. What could bind people in a secular, pluralistic age?

The 19th-century thinkers who began seriously contemplating and writing about the idea of solidarity often used the image of the human body, where different parts work in tandem. Most famously, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim put solidarity at the center of his inquiry, arguing that as society increased in complexity, social bonds between people would strengthen, each person playing a specialized role while connected to a larger whole. Solidarity and social cohesion, he argued, would be the natural result of increasing social and economic interdependence. But as Durkheim himself would eventually recognize, the industrial economy that he initially imagined would generate solidarity would actually serve to weaken its fragile ties, fostering what he called anomie, the corrosive hopelessness that accompanied growing inequality.

In the United States, solidarity never achieved the same intellectual cachet as in Europe. Since this nation’s founding, the concept has generally been neglected, and the practice actively suppressed and even criminalized. Attempts to forge cross-racial solidarity have met with violent suppression time and again, and labor organizing, effectively outlawed until the New Deal era, still occupies hostile legal ground. Decades of market-friendly policies, promoted by Republicans and Democrats alike, have undermined solidarity in ways both subtle and overt, from encouraging us to see ourselves as individual consumers rather than citizens to fostering individualism and competition over collectivity and cooperation.

As our profit-driven economy has made us more insecure and atomized — and more susceptible to authoritarian appeals — the far right has seized its opportunity. A furious backlash now rises to cut down the shoots of solidarity that sprung up as a result of recent movements pushing for economic, racial, environmental and gender justice. In response, programs that encourage diversity and inclusion are being targeted by billionaire investors, while small acts of solidarity — like helping someone get an abortion or bailing protesters out of jail — have been criminalized.

Awaiting the return of Mr. Trump, the Heritage Foundation has mapped out a plan to remake government and society, using the full power of the state to roll back what it calls “the Great Awokening” and restore a Judeo-Christian, capitalist “culture of life” and “blessedness.” “Woke” has been turned into a pejorative so that the word can be wielded to tarnish and break the solidarity that people have only just begun to experience.

Our vision of a solidarity state offers a pointed rejoinder to this project. Social democrats and socialists have been right to emphasize the need for redistribution and robust public investment in goods and services. We must restructure our economy so that it works for the many and not the few. But unlike conservatives — think, for example, of Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of Britain who in 1981 said, “Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul” — liberals and leftists have tended to downplay the role of policy in shaping public sensibilities. This is a mistake.

Laws and social programs not only shape material outcomes; they also shape us, informing public perceptions and preferences, and generating what scholars call policy feedback loops. There is no neutral state to aspire to. Policies can either foster solidarity and help repair the divides that separate us or deepen the fissures.

Today, the American welfare state too often does the latter. As sociologists including Suzanne Mettler and Matthew Desmond have detailed, lower-income people tend to be stigmatized for needing assistance, while more-affluent citizens reap a range of benefits that are comparatively invisible, mainly through tax credits and tax breaks. Both arrangements — the highly visible and stigmatized aid to the poor and the more invisible and socially acceptable aid to the affluent — serve to foster resentment and obscure how we are all dependent on the state in various ways.

Instead of treating citizens as passive and isolated recipients of services delivered from on high, a solidarity state would experiment with creative ways of fostering connection and participation at every opportunity for more Americans. What if we had basic guarantees that were universal rather than means-tested programs that distinguish between the deserving and undeserving, stigmatizing some and setting groups apart? What if, following the model of a widely admired program in Canada, the government aided groups of private citizens who want to sponsor and subsidize migrants and refugees? What if public schools, post offices, transit systems, parks, public utilities and jobs programs were explicitly designed to facilitate social connection and solidarity in addition to providing essential support and services?

We’ll get there only if we take up the challenge of building solidarity from wherever we happen to sit. Both means and end, solidarity can be a source of power, built through the day-to-day work of organizing, and our shared purpose. Solidarity is the essential and too often missing ingredient of today’s most important political project: not just saving democracy but creating an egalitarian, multiracial society that can guarantee each of us a dignified life.

Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix are political organizers and the authors of the book “Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Election 2024
Entertainment
Newsletters
Photography
Personal Finance
AP Buyline Personal Finance
Press Releases
Israel-Hamas War
Russia-Ukraine War
Global elections
Asia Pacific
Latin America
Middle East
March Madness
AP Top 25 Poll
Movie reviews
Book reviews
Personal finance
Financial Markets
Business Highlights
Financial wellness
Artificial Intelligence
Social Media

King Charles stresses importance of kindness as he skips pre-Easter service amid cancer treatment

King Charles III on Thursday stressed the importance of friendship and acts of caring in a recorded message delivered to a traditional pre-Easter church service, which the monarch skipped as he continues to undergo cancer treatment. Queen Camilla represented her husband during the Royal Maundy Service at Worcester Cathedral.

Britain’s Queen Camilla meets well-wishers after attending the Royal Maundy Service, in Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

Copy Link copied

Britain’s Queen Camilla smiles as she arrives for the Royal Maundy Service where she distributes the Maundy money to 75 men and 75 women, mirroring the age of the monarch, in Worcester Cathedral, Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024 to thank them for their outstanding Christian service and for making a difference to the lives of people in their local communities. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

Britain’s Queen Camilla hands out the Maundy Money during the Royal Maundy Service, in Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

Ambassador of Burundi, Epimeni Bapfinda presents his credentials to Britain’s King Charles III, left, during a private audience at Buckingham Palace, London, Thursday March 28, 2024. (Victoria Jones/Pool Photo via AP)

Ambassador of Moldova, Ruslan Bolbocean presents his credentials to Britain’s King Charles III, left, during a private audience at Buckingham Palace, London, Thursday March 28, 2024. (Victoria Jones/Pool Photo via AP)

Britain’s Queen Camilla leaves the Royal Maundy Service with Bishop of Worcester Cathedral, The Right Reverend Dr John Inge where she distributed the Maundy money to 75 men and 75 women, mirroring the age of the monarch, in Worcester Cathedral, in Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

Britain’s Queen Camilla hands out the Maundy Money during the Royal Maundy Service in Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

Britain’s Queen Camilla, center, poses for a photograph with the Maundy Party during the Royal Maundy Service where she distributes the Maundy money to 75 men and 75 women, mirroring the age of the monarch, in Worcester Cathedral, Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

Britain’s Queen Camilla, right is greeted by the Bishop of Worcester, John Inge, as she arrives for the Royal Maundy service at Worcester Cathedral, in Worcester, England, Thursday March 28, 2024.( Jacob King/PA via AP)

Britain’s Queen Camilla, left, and Interim Dean of Worcester Cathedral The Reverend Canon Dr Stephen Edwards, right, arrive for the Royal Maundy Service where The Queen will distribute the Maundy money to 75 men and 75 women, mirroring the age of the monarch, in Worcester Cathedral, Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

Yeomanry guards carry the bowls containing the red and white purses with the Maundy money inside in Worcester Cathedral, in Worcester Cathedral, Worcester, England, Thursday, March 28, 2024. Maundy Thursday is the Christian holy day falling on the Thursday before Easter. The monarch commemorates Maundy by offering ‘alms’ to senior citizens. Each recipient receives two purses, one red and one white. (Justin Tallis, Pool Photo via AP)

LONDON (AP) — King Charles III on Thursday stressed the importance of friendship and acts of caring in a recorded message delivered to a traditional pre-Easter church service, which the monarch skipped as he continues to undergo cancer treatment .

Queen Camilla represented her husband during the Royal Maundy Service at Worcester Cathedral, presenting bags of specially minted coins to people being honored for public service. The event is held every year on the Thursday before Easter, known as Maundy Thursday in Britain.

The personal message from Charles comes after the recent announcements that both the king and the Princess of Wales had been diagnosed with cancer. While the message made no direct reference to the royals’ health problems, it marked the king’s first public comment since his daughter-in-law revealed she was undergoing chemotherapy.

Charles said that Jesus set an “example of how we should serve and care for each other,” and how as a nation “we need and benefit greatly from those who extend the hand of friendship to us, especially in a time of need.’’

The service, which dates back to the year 600, commemorates the Last Supper, when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples as an act of service and humility.

Gillian Anderson poses for photographers upon arrival at the World premiere of the film 'Scoop' on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 in London. (Photo by Vianney Le Caer/Invision/AP)

Sovereigns no longer wash the feet of the needy as they did in medieval times. Instead, Camilla presented purses filled with special coins, known as Maundy money, to 75 women and 75 men, a number dictated by the king’s age.

The service “reminds me of the pledge I made at the beginning of the Coronation Service — to follow Christ’s example ‘not to be served but to serve,’” Charles said in his message. “That I have always tried to do and continue to do, with my whole heart.”

The king stepped back from public appearances in early February, when he announced that he would undergo treatment for an undisclosed type of cancer. He has continued to carry out his state duties, including regular meetings with the prime minister and reviewing and signing government documents.

The Princess of Wales, wife of Prince William, announced last week that she, too, was being treated for an undisclosed type of cancer. The news came after the princess, formerly Kate Middleton, underwent abdominal surgery in January.

IMAGES

Religions Essay
The importance of religion in eitheror
What is Religion
Importance of religion in life English essay writing
PPT
006 P1 Religion Essay ~ Thatsnotus

VIDEO

Religion Explained
Religion In School Essay #religionInSchool #ReligionEssay #mintossmood
Khawateen ki Taleem ki Importance Essay Writing in Urdu Mazmoon Class 7 to 8 and 10
Education importance Essay in Kannada/ಶಿಕ್ಷಣದ ಮಹತ್ವ ಪ್ರಬಂಧ// shikshanada Mahatva Prabandha
importance of education essay 🌼🌺 maro channe lai scbscribe ra vdo lai like comment gardinu hola
The Importance of Humility In Religion

COMMENTS

Essays About Religion: Top 5 Examples and 7 Writing Prompts
7 Prompts on Essays About Religion 1. The Importance of Religion Make your essay interesting by adding real-life stories of how faith changed someone's life. Religion's importance is embedded in an individual or group's interpretation of it. They hold on to their faith for various reasons, such as having an idea of the real meaning of ...
Importance of Religion and Religious Beliefs
Importance of Religion. Three-quarters of U.S. adults say religion is at least "somewhat" important in their lives, with more than half (53%) saying it is "very" important. Approximately one-in-five say religion is "not too" (11%) or "not at all" important in their lives (11%). Although religion remains important to many ...
The Importance of Religion to Humanity
The importance of religion is a topic of this essay. It is often overlooked in discussions among people who hold different beliefs. Some people tend to question the beliefs of those who practice religion, without considering its significance in their lives.
Religion
Religion, human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.
Why Religion Plays Such an Important Role in Any Society Essay
Similarly, religion is as old as the mankind. The reason why religion plays an important role in any society indeed rests on the major roles it plays in society. In this paper, it has been found that the belief that someone or something is watching us from above, the ability to give mankind a sense of belonging and identity and solve societal ...
What Role Does Religion Play in Your Life?
In her recent Opinion essay, " I Followed the Lives of 3,290 Teenagers. This Is What I Learned About Religion and Education ," Ilana M. Horwitz discusses the effects of a religious upbringing ...
The big idea: do we still need religion?
There are at least two reasons, however, why religions persist. One is the fact that, on average, religious people are generally happier, healthier and live longer. For better or for worse, they ...
Essay on Importance of Religion
Importance of Religions in Life. Religion provides a sense of community / belonging to something greater than ourselves. Many people have the need to be part of something bigger, and religion provides that. Belonging to a group of like-minded believers gives people a sense of purpose and fulfillment. Religion provides a sense of identity.
Religion Essay Examples for College Students
Why Is Freedom of Religion Important. Freedom of religion stands as one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic and pluralistic society. It safeguards an individual's right to practice their chosen faith without fear of discrimination or persecution. This essay delves into the resons why freedom of religion is important, exploring...
Religion in the Modern World
Religion is relevantly important to different people in the world. That is the reason why as much as religion faces so much criticism from disciplines like science and theories as evolution it will stand the test of time. Religion deals with the bigger criticism but some people have proved to stand the tests. Works Cited. Haley, Alex.
Why Is Religion Important?
It gives a purpose to our lives, helps guide us through our lives, helps us appreciate our world and one other, and it plays a crucial part in the evolution in our society. (Reuters 1) Religion is not only a necessary but a vital part of our lives. Without faith, people would find it difficult to live their lives.
Essay on What is Religion for Students and Children
Religion refers to a belief in a divine entity or deity. Moreover, religion is about the presence of God who is controlling the entire world. Different people have different beliefs. And due to this belief, many different cultures exist. Further, there are a series of rituals performed by each religion. This is done to please Gods of their ...
Essay On Importance Of Religion
Essay On Importance Of Religion. 927 Words4 Pages. Whether religion is important to one's life is a debatable issue. This is a topic where many people would agree to disagree the importance of religion in people's life. Every society 's standards and laws are based on some form of religion. Throughout history, we have seen many societies ...
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of religion can play an important role in helping persons understand and evaluate different religious traditions and their alternatives. ... In an appropriately titled essay, "Why religious pluralism is not evil and is in some respects quite good", (2018) Robert McKim presents reasons why, from a philosophical point of view, it ...
Essay on Why Is Religion Important?
Essay on Why Is Religion Important? Decent Essays. 579 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. "Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a spiritual life." -- Buddha. "So I say to you, Ask and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you." --Jesus Christ.
Religion, Culture, and Communication
Collectively, the intercultural work examining religion demonstrates the increasing importance of the intersection between religion and culture in communication studies. Collectively, communication studies discourse about religion has focused on how religion is an integral part of an individual's culture.
Religion Essay
Religion Essay. Sort By: Page 1 of 50 - About 500 essays. Decent Essays. Religion, Religion And Religion. 1418 Words; 6 Pages; Religion, Religion And Religion ... Religion : The Importance Of Religion And Religions. The other common feature in many religions is the distinction of sacred places, time, events or people from ordinary ways of life ...
9 Reasons Why Religion is so Important in Life and to Society ...
In all those ways religion is inspiring people to fulfill their purposes in life for a good cause. 3. Religion gives people hope, faith, and belief for a better future during hard times. Religious teachings set a very good ground for counseling and giving people hope during hard times. The stories in religious books like the bible actually have ...
Is Religion Important to Society?
The fact that religion has been an important factor in human society is difficult to debate. When religion is viewed as the phenomenon of institutionalized belief, it is apparent that it is a major element of human culture. It tends to affect and even shape multiple aspects of the life of a society, which will be defined here as a community or ...
Why is Religion Important Essay
Why is Religion Important Essay. If we are not governed by a set of values, then our principles and idea of right and wrong are only based on opinion. The Nazis were not evil. They had a set of values that do not match many of the values that exist today. If they had kept to the religious promises they made the Vatican as they rose to power ...
Faith, Reason, and Culture: An Essay in Fundamental Theology
Explores the rationality of faith in the contemporary world. Addresses multiple issues of contemporary culture, including: secularism and atheism, science-religion relations, religious diversity and inter-religious dialogue. Conceives fundamental theology as a discipline which seeks religious truth in the midst of diverse perspectives.
13.1 What Is Religion?
The other signpost used within anthropology to make sense of religion was crafted by American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) in his work The Interpretation of Cultures (1973). Geertz's definition takes a very different approach: "A religion is: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3 ...
Role of Religion in Our Lives: Exploring the Faith and the Sin
To conclude why is religion important essay, more and more it can be said that there will be a refinement in sin tendency. Faith for not sinning will arise. If so many are called sinful retirement, then it can be called pithy. It is understandable to get rid of tendency in sin, even by recitation, but to be told extraordinary glory of cheap ...
8 in 10 Americans Say Religion Is Losing Influence in Public Life
And a majority (64%) say it's important to have a president who stands up for people with their religious beliefs. About half of U.S. adults (48%) say it is important for the president to hold strong religious beliefs. Fewer (37%) say it's important for the president to have the same religious beliefs as their own.
Essay
Essay. Judaism Is a Religion of the Heart The familiar idea that Christianity is about love while Judaism is about law is a misunderstanding of Jewish tradition, a rabbi argues.
What is Palm Sunday and how is it celebrated worldwide?
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. The Associated Press is an independent global news organization dedicated to factual reporting. Founded in 1846, AP today remains the most trusted ...
Opinion
Mr. Trump himself recognizes the emerging political split. "Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion," he said in an interview published on Monday. "They hate ...
Half of D.C. adults never or rarely attend religious services
About 57% of adults say that religion has a positive impact on American life, per Pew. By the numbers: 11% of Washington residents attend services 1-3 times a year, 8% attend 4-11 times per year, and 23% attend 12 or more times. Meanwhile, 51% of adults living in D.C. never or seldom attend religious services.
Opinion
Guest Essay. The One Idea That Could Save American Democracy. March 21, 2024. Video. ... Solidarity is the essential and too often missing ingredient of today's most important political project ...
King Charles stresses importance of kindness as he skips pre-Easter
King Charles III on Thursday stressed the importance of friendship and acts of caring in a recorded message delivered to a traditional pre-Easter church service, which the monarch skipped as he continues to undergo cancer treatment. Queen Camilla represented her husband during the Royal Maundy Service at Worcester Cathedral.