About the Site
Tim Holt launched Philosophy of Religion .Info in June 2003 with the aim of involving as many people as possible in philosophical conversation about God. Many, though not all, philosophy of religion resources on the internet consist either of brief lecture notes or of technical journal articles. The aim here is to find a middle way between these two extremes, providing material that is detailed, but also concise and reasonably accessible. Conforming the site to this ideal is, of course, on ongoing project.
The site is intended for two audiences. First, and most obviously, it is intended as a resource for philosophy students taking courses in the philosophy of religion. Students are increasingly using the internet as a starting-point for research; hopefully they will find here useful introductions to the topic that they are looking into, and useful links to other sources.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is intended for thinking Christians, atheists and agnostics who are not formal students of philosophy. The philosophy of religion is an exciting area, and the questions that it speaks to are of profound significance. My hope is that this site will contribute to the project of opening up this area to as many people as possible.
As the aim of the site is not so much to bring people to reach specific conclusions on the questions raised as it is to provoke thought about them, it is generally written in as neutral a tone as I can muster. On the internet, debates about God, even philosophical ones, too often descend into either dogmatic exhortations to believe or ad hominem attacks on believers. I try, as far as is possible without calling bad arguments good ones, to present a balanced view of the issues raised.
One effect of this is that each section begins with a sympathetic exposition of an argument, regardless of whether I am in fact sympathetic to that argument. There are, in fact, many arguments presented on the site, some in favour of Christianity and some against it, that I do not believe are defensible. The expositions are sympathetic because they provide the background for the proceeding discussions, not because they necessarily reflect my views. Anyone sending me critical comments on the arguments described here should, before adopting too disparaging a tone, ask themselves whether the position that they are criticising is actually mine. That said, feedback about the site by e-mail, critical or otherwise, is very welcome.
The site is an ongoing project, and will continue to be developed for some time. Consequently, different sections will inevitably be at varying levels of completion as you read this. If the section in which you are most interested is one of the less developed, either incomplete or unpolished, then I apologise. I will get to it eventually!