What problem, essentially, is C. Stephen Evans attempting to resolve? Is his resolution effective? Why or why not?

opinion Essay
1884 words
1884 words

C. Stephen Evans is stating there is a problem with the philosophy of religion having a neutral stance. Evans rejects both fideism as well as neutralism, and believes that by trying to have a, “neutral, disinterested posture,” a person could, “cut themselves off from the possibility of even understanding what religion is all about,” (Evans, 1985 p. 115). Evans notes that the view of faith and reason, by some religious believers think it is an impossibility to have “rational reflection” on religion. After his arguments that disprove many ideas in both fideism and neutralism, he proposes an alternative solution which he has named, “critical dialog”, that he hopes will, “preserve the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of the initial theories,” (p. 115). “Correct thinking about religion is rather a genuine faith, a personal commitment,” (p. 116).
Evans’ explanations and arguments on the Fideist point of view are eye-opening and well argued. The fideist believes that people who choose neutrality are the rebellious humans that do not believe in God and that being neutral is just an illusion. The fideist thinks that a person who attempts to be neutral is, “impious or presumptuous, an arrogant placing of human reason above God,” (p. 117). Evans goes on to point out that his view is that humans can never really be religiously neutral. Either they believe or they do not, and the non-believers according to Evans are “rebels against the Creator,”. I particularly like this next quote because it makes me think about my own situation a few years ago, Evans states the rebel goes against the grain and chooses a path that, “All her activities reflect the distorted and twisted character she has given to life,” (p. 116).
The Neutralists’ percei...

... middle of paper ... the opportunity to re-do this journal entry. Honestly, because I feel so behind, I probably would have moved onto the current and future assignments instead, but I am pleased with what I learned due to your brilliant idea. I appreciate learning and I enjoyed this subject immensely.

Works Cited

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Presuppose. 2014.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. supposition. 2014.

Peterson, Michael - Hasker, Reichenbach and Basinger. Philosophy of Religion - Selected Readings, Fourth Edition. 2010. Oxford University Press, NY.

Evans, C. Stephen. Critical Dialog in Philosophy of Religion. 1985. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press. Taken from Philosophy of Religion - Selected Readings, Fourth Edition. 2010. Oxford University Press, NY.

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that an idea or theory that you believe is true even though you don't have proof.
  • Opines that to be presuppositionless would be to not have any preconceptions about religion or any kind of loyalty to our family by disregarding their beliefs.
  • Explains the process of critical dialog, as explained by evans, is very much like their point of view on the matter.
  • Opines that everyone is a production of their circumstances in some way. there are legal right and wrong, but there are moral ones as well.
  • Opines that religion is a necessary thing, regardless of form, because most religions teach morality, integrity, love, respect, selflessness, and loyalty.
  • Analyzes how evans rejects both fideism and neutralism and proposes a solution called "critical dialog."
  • Concludes that evans' idea of critical dialog is a different view or tweak to what we presuppose what "reason" actually is.
  • Opines that by not selling their belief, they reach more people than being so unbendable in their stance on religion, that it runs people off.
  • Cites peterson, michael, hasker, reichenbach, and basinger in philosophy of religion - selected readings, fourth edition, oxford university press, ny.
Get Access