Review

Title: Philosophy of Religion: A Very Short Introduction
Author: Tim Bayne
Publisher: Oxford University Press, New York City
Genre: Religious Non-Fiction
Year Published: 2018
Number of Pages:133
Binding: Softbound
ISBN: 9780198754961
Price: $11.95

Reviewed by Kevin Folkman for the Association for Mormon Letters

This is my first experience with the “Very Short Introduction” series from Oxford University Press, and I have to be honest in saying that my first impression was one of confusion. The book’s physical format is small, a pocket-sized 4 ½” by 7”. If you need a pocket size reference on religious philosophy to carry around with you, I thought, either you are being somewhat pretentious, or else you are doing it wrong.

First impressions certainly are not final judgments, however, and I have to admit that I quite liked Tim Bayne’s concise overview of philosophical approaches to religion and theology. My previous exposures to religious philosophy have been both insightful and at other times incomprehensible. At the most basic level, religious philosophy can be perceived as an intellectual game, positing arguments for certain viewpoints, and then reviewing all the arguments as to why that particular viewpoint is wrong. At its most incomprehensible, vocabulary and the worst kind of academic writing seem designed to frighten off all but those already steeped in the discipline. This short book seemed to hit the sweet spot for me, not steeped in jargon nor overly detached from reality.

Bayne, Professor of Philosophy at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, has created a lively but brief survey of the major elements of religious philosophy, laying out short but understandable paragraph-length explanations of various arguments, and then the competing counterarguments. He wisely draws no conclusions, and instead creates a foundation for further exploration, which is ultimately the goal of the many different titles in the Very Short Introduction series.

For example, in his chapter on the Concept of God, Bayne writes that theists (as he defines it, theists are believers in God, more often than not the monotheistic God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but not limited to that) refer to God as the creator of Heaven and Earth, as described in Genesis chapter 1.

“But what precisely does ‘the heavens and the earth’ include? Does it include time? Does it include abstract entities like numbers? Does it include the laws of morality? The author of Genesis simply doesn’t say.” [p11]

What follows is a brief discussion of arguments for and against various views of creation, and the subsequent problems with each view.

Similarly, in the chapter on arguments for the existence of God, Bayne sums up natural theology, perhaps the most commonly held view regarding God’s existence. In a chapter subheading titled “Does it Matter?” he states three views in response to the argument that it is not possible to establish the existence of God:

“They argue that if it is not possible to establish God’s existence then the intellectual respectability of theism would be undermined, and belief in God would be unmasked as irrational at best, and delusional at worst. Others regard the failure of natural theology with indifference, holding that religious belief ought to be independent of reason and rationality…evidence and argument are irrelevant when it comes to matters of faith. A third group of theorists view the potential failure of natural theology as a cause for celebration…for they regard proof as the enemy of faith…I will leave you to consider which of these three positions is most attractive.” [p51]

From a Mormon perspective, it is interesting to contrast how he explains classical monotheism with our own understanding of many of these concepts. Bayne takes as a given the classical monotheistic view of a God who is transcendent, or beyond mortal comprehension, not spatially located, and incorporeal, yet is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. While some Mormons may believe part of these things, most quite freely believe, as we have been taught, that we are created in the image of God, a being of flesh and bone. However, that highlights a problem within Mormon thought. Our theology is not necessarily organized and well defined, lacking any magisterial formal authority. Or as BYU professor of philosophy James Faulconer puts it,

“…the absence of official rational explanations or descriptions of beliefs and practices, and the presence of differing and inconsistent explanations for and descriptions of belief within the membership of the church, suggests that we have little if any official systematic, rational, or dogmatic theology. We are “a-theological”—which means that we are without a church-sanctioned, church-approved, or even church-encouraged systematic theology—and that is as it should be because systematic theology is dangerous.” [fn1]

Our theology is not settled. As some have described it, defining Mormon doctrine and theology is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. [fn2] We can either believe in an eternal, uncreated soul, as Joseph Smith taught in some of his final sermons, or in the viviparous birth of our spirits through “heavenly mothers” from unorganized spirit matter, as taught by Brigham Young. Is God truly omniscient, knowing all that we will do before we do it, or do we truly have free will (or agency, as we prefer) with the capacity to surprise deity from time to time? We believe in a creation story that leans heavily on the “organizing” of existing matter, yet we talk and sing about God and Jesus Christ, and “That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created…”[fn3]

For an LDS reader unacquainted with these concepts of religious philosophy, this book provides an easy approach to understanding the value of discussing these philosophical and theological questions. No one has an easy answer to the problem of evil, but Bayne provides us with enough of a foundation of how others approach this and other theological principles that hopefully will encourage readers to take a deeper dive to understand some of the significant advantages elements of Mormon doctrine provides. For those who want to know more, then perhaps they can read the works of significant LDS philosophers of religion, such as James Faulconer, Blake Ostler, or my personal favorite, Sterling McMurrin, in his landmark volume “Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion.” [fn4]

If nothing else, this small and short volume will fit quite well into a purse or the inside pocket of a suit or sport coat for those moments when Sunday School or Relief Society/Priesthood meetings fail to engage us. Watch out, though, as the bright red cover does not lend itself to discretion, despite its small size.

Footnotes:

[fn1] James Faulconer, “Rethinking Theology,” FARMS Review 19/1, p 179.

[fn2] For example, see this blog post: http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2009/06/why-were-confused/

[fn3] Doctrine & Covenants, Section 76 verse 24.

[fn4] Sterling McMurrin, “The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion,” University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1965.