I'm aware of many arguments attempting to prove or disprove or make probable or improbable the existance of a God. However, I don't know of any attempts by recent academic philosophers to explain why religion is such a ubiquitous phenomenon historically and at present among humans. It seems remarkable to me me that no early human civilization developed without some kind of supernatural deity/agency. There's some overlap here with psychology/sociology/anthropology, but Im more interested in philosophical analysis that is informed by the social sciences. Im uncertain of the probably of the existance of a God based on the traditional arguments, and I find the moral implications of the Judeo/Christian God troubling (how could hell be just?), but why do so many humans seem to need religion? As a nonreligious person I feel that even my own life is lacking something without belief in something sublime/transcendent. I'd appreciate book recommendations also.

How can a theist respond to the problem of evil in the specific case of mental illness? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows that mental illness causes suffering, and is able to prevent it, but chooses not to. For an omniscient, omnipotent, morally-perfect god to exist, there must be a morally justifying-reason to permit this suffering. The usual theistic responses to the problem of evil do not seem to apply in the specific case of mental illness. The free will defence fails because mental illness actually suppresses free will; therefore, if God really valued free will, he would prevent mental illness. The soul-making theodicy fails because mental illness actually deprives sufferers of their ability to comprehend their existence in relation to God and His creation; therefore, if God really valued spiritual growth, He would prevent mental illness. It also won't do to say that the suffering of the mentally ill gives others the chance to be morally good, because the pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs to treat mental illness are infamously motivated by profit rather than altruism. The afterlife response fails because to be mentally ill for eternity would cause even more suffering. Skeptical theism is inconsistent with the fact that we try to treat people with mental illness to cure them; if we really believed that God had an unknown, morally-justifying reason to allow people to be mentally ill, then we would not try to cure mental illness ourselves. And, of course, the fact that we can treat mental illness shows that it is not logically impossible to do so. In light of this, how can a theist defend their belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, morally-perfect god?

I am wondering if there is a flaw in the following reasoning: If an event occurs, then that event now becomes possible and able to reoccur. If the event can reoccur, then the event is not "super natural" nor is the event a "miracle". Therefore, there is no possibly way for the "supernatural" or "miracles" to exist. If there are no "supernatural" things or "miracles" that exist, then there is no God. I find that the argument is weird because the criteria eliminates the possibility of what is in question in the first place: the "supernatural" or the "miracle". Basically if something does not fit into the science mold the arguer won't allow the conversation to continue. I can ask "What would God have to do to convince you he exists?" The honest answer I received was "He can't do anything to prove himself!" The reason is because as soon as God acts in a physical way, there is a scientific explanation. So if God were to levitate the entire state of Texas in the sky 15,000 feet for 7 days this is not a miracle nor is it supernatural. What is the flaw in this reasoning or is this acceptable?

Does an Omniscient God contradict Free Will? Yes, a very age-old question, with many answers. The problem seemed to arise when we thought that if God knows what we will do or "choose" then it's metaphysically necessary for us to choose or do that, because what God knows IS true, thus it's true event A will happen if God knows it will. There's no Free Will because there's no chance that event A can NOT happen, in this view Free Will is just an illusion. But! Some Philosophers have objected by saying that God's knowledge is from or depends on our choice, it's formed by the choices we genuinely (freely?) make for ourselves, because God's omniscience is "logically simultaneous" with our choices. So God's knowledge doesn't write out history, history writes out God's knowledge. (By the way doesn't this make god a contingent being? Thus precluding God from "working" as an answer for the modal ontological and cosmological argument, since God is not a non-contingent being?) But I've never been convinced by this. I think there is one aspect about God's story ignored in all this. Which is that God created us, we didn't choose to exist, God chose that for us. Now why is this relevant? Let me give a narrative; Say you're holding a Rat above a maze deciding whether to drop it in. There are only two exits "reward zone" and "punishment zone". You're omniscient (in the same way the above God is) and know that if you drop the Rat in it will choose a path for itself that leads to the punishment zone. But if you drop the Rat into the maze then you're making (forcing) the Rat to exist in a world in which you know it will end up in the punishment zone. In other words aren't you condemning the Rat to the punishment zone? By now I'm sure you get what I'm making an analogy to. Doesn't Omniscience along with the "Act of Creation" preclude Free Will? i.e. Because God forced us to exist in a world where it knew we would do A, doesn't that mean it condemned us to eventually do A? Thanks I really look forward to any responses!

A friend of mine self identifies as a Christian but rejects the concept of a personal anthropomorphic god. It appears to me that a person who rejects that concept of god seems to have much more in common with an atheist than a Christian since it seems that many Christians subscribe to the view of god which my friend rejects. Does it make sense to identify with the Christian tradition when one is rejecting-it appears to me- a fundamental part of the religion?

Can someone be an atheist and do good work in the philosophy of religion? what sorts of issues would attract such a person?

I've taken an introductory class in the philosophy of religion and I've read some introductory materials about it on the internet. I'm sort of disappointed with the kinds of questions that are considered central to the philosophy of religion because it seems like other questions can be just as central but they aren't mentioned. One of the central questions of the philosophy of religion is whether or not God existence can be proved. While that is undoubtedly an important question "proof" seems to be a high standard even in philosophy and a "succinct" proof that can be written in a formulaic manner is an even higher standard. If you want to argue whether or not Bill Gates is a good man it isn't necessary to prove his existence. You can however attempt to characterize his behavior within a context and from that attempt to evaluate whether he is a good or a bad person. Should not the philosophy of religion, for at least some important strands of religious thinking, work in a similar vein? That is it would involve an empirical and philosophical effort to consider whether or not the world can be evaluated in terms of the existence of some form of deity. This is already done with efforts to disprove the existence of God in the form of the "problem of evil." (Although that has a very succinct persuasive power)

If, as some apologists say, God never changes; surely, then, God lived an infinity before creating the world. One wonders why he changed in order to create people. If for companionship, why are so many people flawed by whatever criteris one uses? This is a very enjoyable blog. JH

Many people bring forth the argument that the chances of life, especially intelligent human life, occurring are so ridiculously improbable that the only way to explain it is to bring a creator into the picture. I've heard various figures thrown around and grains of sand in the universe brought in to explain how unlikely it is. But is the actual science behind the probability sound? And do you think that this is a good reason to believe in a creator? And what about a rational, logical argument explaining how this is not a very good reason? Thanks.

Is modern critique of religion (that of past and present) practical or obsolete? In other terms is the philosophy of religion more of a debate or consensus? And would you say most professors of philosophy grant their attention either way?