P.J. Clarke, Religion, Faith, And Philosophy, SCM Philosophy of Religion Series (London: SCM, 2009). vi+336 pps. $49.99
P.J. Clarke is a retired faculty member, once teaching Theology and Religious Studies. He currently is an examiner for the AQA and Edexcel exam boards. In this title, he apparently seeks to generate a college-level textbook for Philosophy of Religion courses. As such, invoking the title, it broadly covers religion, faith, and philosophy. Divided into 4 roughly equal sections, the book explores God, Faith, and Philosophy; Religion and the Human Experience; Religion and the Challenge of Atheism; and Religion and Human Behavior. Without attempting to be thorough, I will address a few items from the book that I found illuminating, and a couple that I was concerned about. Let me begin with the good.
Throughout the text, Clarke takes pains to illustrate the various points under discussion by referencing past ‘legends’ of the faith that have held, at various times, opposing, congruent, and complimentary views regarding the topics he choose to write about; this is a definite positive as it allows students to orient a topic in both time and space (or confession, i.e.). The writing is everywhere clear and pointed, allowing for not much ambiguity, as the prose is straightforward. Additionally, I adore the fact that Clarke was impelled to discuss issues related to the interaction of science and religion, as these have become ever-increasingly important in this twenty-first century.
Having said the above, there are – what I consider to be – some infelicities in the text, primarily in matters dealing with science and scientism. In contrasting scientism, naturalism, evidentialism, and theism, it seems as though the key distinction between scientism and theism hinges upon semantics, with especial regard to two words: within, and about. Scientism explains all ‘facts’ within the world, whereas theism accepts those facts and then explains ‘facts’ about the world in addition. This seems to me to be cumbersome semantics, as well as a dubious distinction. Science explains facts, not beliefs about facts, and this would seem to be a better way of saying, perhaps, the same notion that Clarke wishes to elucidate. After all, belief, per se, is outside of science, and the term necessarily entails the word about, and adding it to the term fact seems to be convoluted.
Additionally, in discussing how authority is exercised today in churches, (note not at the Reformation specifically), Clarke contrasts Protestant and Catholic sources of authority; and whereas I well agree that there was a clear distinction in sources of authority in the two segments of the church at that time, in today’s churches – even protestant (especially the radically ‘free’ churches), an almost authoritarian hierarchy has resurfaced, if not in name, nonetheless in practice.
These reservations aside, I profited much from this tightly written textbook. I could easily see myself using it in Philosophy of Religion courses at the undergraduate level.
Bradford McCall
Regent University