NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 62, Issue 3, 2008

In this article it is argued that all religious beliefs to the effect that a specific god exists are prima facie implausible for two reasons: traditional sources of religious knowledge, or methods of religious investigation, such as revelations, prayer, and the interpretation of ‘signs’, have turned out to be unreliable, and religious beliefs are implausible given the background knowledge provided by modern science and scholarship. Four contemporary apologetic strategies for the religious believer, developed in detail by analytic philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga or Richard Swinburne, are discussed and criticized. It is further argued that the 18 objections against my argument for universal strong disjunctive atheism in ‘Atheïstisch manifest. De onredelijkheid van religie’ (Amsterdam, 1995, 2004), put forward by René van Woudenberg and Rik Peels (NTT 62/1:24-44), are inconclusive.

In his article ‘Religious Belief in the Age of Science: An Epistemological Tragedy’ Herman Philipse gives a reply to our critique of his argument in favor of what he calls disjunctive atheism. In this paper we argue that his response seriously fails: disjunctive atheism, as it stands, is still utterly unconvincing. We respond to Philipse’s objection that it is a procedural anomaly to subject the theses and arguments that we find in his book to academic philosophical criteria and we provide some more argumentative evidence for the claim that there is no good reason to accept either (P2) or (P3), two crucial premises in Philipse’s argument.

In their reply to my ‘Religious Belief in the Age of Science', called ‘A Failing Atheistic Argument’, Rik Peels and René van Woudenberg commit the same logical errors that I already pointed out in that article, and some new ones. They overlook the restrictions on the domain of the destructive dilemma supporting my atheistic position, they confuse two different notions of ‘fact’, they assume, mistakenly, that a proposition to the effect that God exists can be logically necessary, and they are confused about multiple causal explanations of the same event. The relevant points of logic are elucidated and it is concluded again that my argument for atheism has not been undermined by their criticisms.

This article has a two fold purpose. First of all, it explores Bonhoeffer’s usage of the term Arkandisziplin. Secondly, it outlines his conviction that church and belief should be directed to the world. The article describes Bonhoeffer’s writings on the subject and attempts to understand his line of thought. As an interlude, attention is granted to his distinction between the ultimate and the penultimate, because this distinction is of crucial importance to the term Arkandisziplin. Finally, the article poses the question how Arkandisziplin could benefit the relationship between the church and the world and how the church interacts with the world.

In the eyes of editors and advertisers involved in six spiritual magazines, spirituality is predominantly an individual process of experience, consciousness and insights. Only when specifically asked did respondents link spirituality to social engagement. Most did not experience tensions between spirituality and commerce: their idealistic motivations prevailed. On the ten features of commercialization which we distinguished, ParaVisie and Happinez scored highest and Zens and Prana lowest.