Philosophy of Religion

Join an esteemed professor of philosophy in exploring the question of divine existence by using the tools of epistemology.
Philosophy of Religion is rated 3.7 out of 5 by 83.
  • y_2021, m_9, d_17, h_20
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.19
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_2, tr_81
  • loc_en_CA, sid_4680, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_teachco
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.1
  • CLOUD, getAggregateRating, 41.24ms
Rated 3 out of 5 by from Mixed But Still Worth The Viewing Considering its almost 20 years old and a lot happens to thinking about this topic over nearly 20 years, it was helpful to me to learn the many different ways that the existence of GOD can be argued and even considering I believe that the answer is is unknowable I found value here. I would score it at 3.5. If one has absolutely minimal knowledge of this topic and is willing to have an open mind, I would recommend it. My only brickbat is the course guide - just not worthy of the importance of the topic and hand.
Date published: 2021-08-09
Rated 5 out of 5 by from This man is a great mentor I have read some of other reviews. I can see their point, BUT I greatly benefitted from his ability to HEAR HIM THINK. I will continue to include other sources. As I watched, i relistened to to some of his lectures 2 or 3 times. That is because i am a teacher. I profitted much from his meannderings. I will likely listen to sections of it again.
Date published: 2020-09-03
Rated 5 out of 5 by from Perfect title Intelligent,well read and an excellent lecturer on a very important topic.
Date published: 2020-05-27
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Dry and out of touch Hall conveys some useful knowledge in this course, but to learn it you'll have to push through hours of dry presentation. You'll also become infuriated by many of Hall's statements if you don't happen to share his Victorian morals. I also found it annoying that Hall declared himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, without properly defining either term or acknowledging that someone can be both at the same time.
Date published: 2020-01-19
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Worthless from the get-go Of the dozens of Teaching Company/Great Courses courses I have taken, this one easily takes the bottom slot. I endorse the more detailed remarks from reviewers Philvish, OngoingLearner, and Craig Payne, and BGZ Rediz, so I won't repeat them, but I will go further than saying this is a poor course: it's an absolute embarrassment. Hall has nothing to offer but childish quibbles, superficial analyses, and tangential personal anecdotes. This is neither philosophy nor excellence in teaching. The section on theodicy was unbelievably naive. Can I say something nice? Yes, he has a pleasant voice.
Date published: 2019-11-07
Rated 4 out of 5 by from Slow and Steady Almost Wins the Race As many reviewers have observed, Professor Hall takes his time both in terms of his speech and in the amount of time that he takes to reach his point (which is sometimes a conclusion). The upside is that one is never in doubt as to his clarity nor the ideas he is presenting. For some, the downside is that listening to him is somewhat like watching paint dry (not my mixed metaphor). As an example of his measured approach, he takes the opening three lectures to define his terms: (1) What is Philosophy?; (2) What is Religion?; and (3) What is Philosophy of Religion?—a reasonable, but turgid approach. He then takes two more lectures to define the use of the word, “God”. It turns out that Dr. Hall is only considering “Ethical Monotheism” (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) while discussing the philosophy of religion, a reasonable, although limited restriction given the wide-ranging, intellectual sweep if considering all religions. After these introductory lectures, the course continues with establishing even more ground, using lectures to discuss knowledge, evidence and what constitutes “good” evidence. This eight-lecture introduction is all done before Dr. Hall considers the question of why even argue about the existence of God. Some reviewers consider that this could have been compressed. Finally the main part of the course arrives, where the methodology is to consider why the various arguments as to the existence of God work (usually one lecture per argument type) and then another lecture as to why that particular argument fails. There are of course other lectures on the theodicy problem, evil of various types, faith and evidence, transcendentalism and more, much more. In short this is an exhaustive course. Not necessarily a bad thing, and an approach that I found most helpful. But I must admit that as much as I learned from this style, the word “enjoyed” does not necessarily come to mind, as there were plenty of times that I thought to myself, “Ok got it. Now move on”. About 30 lectures would hit the mark. I took the course on audio and don't feel that I missed anything. Recommended presuming you have an interest in the subject, but I deduct a star for lack of editing.
Date published: 2019-10-08
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Flecks of Gold in a Slow, Muddy, Meandering Stream There is some wisdom hidden in this course. I imagine it would appeal to those who enjoy fishing or panning for gold - time passes slowly, but every now and then a thing of value is hauled in. (Full disclosure: I do not enjoy fishing or panning for gold.) The first three lectures actually provide a well-done introduction. Then the essentials of the philosophy of religion, at least with respect to the so-called ethical monotheistic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are covered. These include the traditional arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, and teleological) as well as their counter-arguments; the persuasiveness, or lack thereof, of claims of direct encounters with God; and the power of the problem of evil as an argument against God's existence, itself countered by the so-called theodicies, or explanations for evil in a world under the sovereignty of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good being. This is followed by a consideration of whether evidence is even needed for, or relevant to, faith, and a discussion of the seeming contradiction of why an ultimate and transcendent God should care about insignificant little us at all. The final section concerns religion as story-telling with a purpose (although I found it hard to understand what this has to do with philosophy). All of this is fascinating, valuable, and worthwhile material. But Professor Hall's presentation of it could readily have been accomplished in one third the time, with room to spare. (This is not hyperbole.) Unfortunately, the majority of our time is spent sitting through a fairly comprehensive course in how not to teach. Examples here may sound trivial, but they are repeated so incessantly as to make the experience, at least for me, difficult to bear and impossible to recommend. These negatives include: Unhelpful self-referential comments. ("I'm being facetious." "I can't even keep a straight face while I say it." "I'm a great believer in laying my cards on the table.") Irrelevant personal history. (Our professor likes mathematics but doesn't understand imaginary numbers. He had french fries for lunch with lots of salt, which were delicious, but which his doctor would be mad at.) Constantly and pointlessly using different phrases for the same idea, ("...little machines, automatons, little devices...) as well as often repeating the same words. Irrelevant digressions, and irrelevant digressions from irrelevant digressions. (He is often kind enough to indicate when we are about to go on one of these excursions by stating that he is adding a "footnote.") And perhaps most off-putting, the lectures (with the exceptions of the first three introductory talks, and the final summary session) are unfocused, poorly organized and almost stream-of-consciousness. It is primarily this last problem which results in the course being three or four times its ideal length. As others have noted, Professor Hall comes across as a very nice guy who would make a fine dinner companion. And he speaks beautifully, and would be a pleasure to listen to if what he was saying were more to-the-point. But, given all of the issues noted above, and the fact that the negative overwhelms the gold, I cannot recommend this course.
Date published: 2019-07-23
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Oh... My... G-d...! As another reviewer said, Prof. Hall seems like a very nice guy, so I hate to trash his course. But I have no choice. This is not the worst TTC course I've listened to (don't buy Prof. Stearn's Brief History of the World) but it's a not too distant second. (OK - not fair. It is, in fact, a very distant second.) This course could have easily accommodated all of its useful material in a twelve lecture series, with plenty of room left for improvement. He spends way to much time telling anecdotes about his past and too little time actually talking about the subject. I have to quote a student review of Prof. Hall's class at Richmond: "Hilarious old man. Very straightforward teacher with lots of random stories. Impersonal, big class, and he won't learn your name, but a nice time to zone out and still get a decent grade with not too much effort. Counts for math requirement!" I have to admit to feeling the same way after making my way through all 36 lectures. The best thing that can be said is "Counts for math requirement!" So far, this is a totally unfair review. What is it about the class that makes it so uninspiring (and so uninformative)? Lectures 1-6 "explore" in turn philosophy, religion, philosophy of religion, G-d, G-d (again), and "knowledge". Three hours that could easily have fit into 15 minutes. Most of these lectures are ammunition for those who believe that practitioners of philosophy are engaged in advanced navel-gazing. And that's as boring to listen to as it sounds. 7 and 8 are good, solid lectures on what kinds of evidence we should count and how we should evaluate claims of religious "knowledge". 10 and 11 explore the "ontological" argument for the existence of G-d. Personally, I don't understand how anyone could use a definitional argument to try to prove the existence of G-d. Apparently philosophers have, so fair game I suppose. But he never explains how, since definitions are conventional, we can't just change the convention. There must be more to the argument than he puts forward, but we don't hear it. He then spends five lectures on the cosmological and teleological arguments (which I'm hard pressed to distinguish even after listening to the course). Here's one of his worst failings. Even in 2002, the argument from design was far more advanced than he gives it credit. I still think it fails, but because he presents such a truncated and simplistic view of the argument from design, it's a straw man that falls apart at the first touch. He spends his time on the 18th century philosopher that argued that G-d gave us opposable thumbs and nostrils that are directed down rather than up. Of course Darwin has no trouble explaining those very simple "designs" so Prof. Halls washes his hands of the whole enterprise. Argument from design, of course, merits a far more thorough discussion and refutation, and Prof. Hall fails on all counts. Six lectures are then spent on the problem of evil, and I will say that he does a fair job explaining the problem of evil and then does a half-reasonable job of religious apologetics on the topic. However, the theological responses are better than he gives them credit for here. All he says, in the end, is "Scottish verdict - Not proved". (A phrase he overuses to the point of tedium.) Granted, theology is trying to defend itself here, not play offense, so no amount of discussion of apologetics is going to prove the existence of G-d. But I would have expected better, even if it doesn't directly advance the self-described purpose of the course (i.e., proving or disproving the existence of G-d). Then we get five lectures on philosophical paradigms. Now we're back to the navel gazing, and it was all I could do to get through these lectures. Very little here relates to the thesis of the course, whether G-d can be proven to exist or not. Now we're in the realm of "can theists talk to non-theists?". And if we don't start with that assumption, there's no point in listening to his course. So five lectures on the question seems a bit excessive. (This is much more about the history of philosophy, not the history of the philosophy of religion. So I think it's out of place.) Finally, as others have complained, we get three or four lectures on his personal approach to being a better human being. Nice, but not relevant. Overall, he spends too much time repeating himself, too much time telling personal anecdotes, and too much time navel gazing for this to be a decent course. I feel bad writing such a negative review, but it may reflect my bad attitude about philosophy in general as much as it does Prof. Hall's course itself. (Though, then again, it may not. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.) Unless you love philosophy as a discipline, don't buy this course. If your interest is religion, there are lots and lots of good courses out there for you. This is not one of them. (For completeness, and to disclose my personal biases: I, like Prof. Hall, am agnostic at best (and a suspected atheist to boot). So I don't think my animis is generated by a different worldview from Prof. Hall's.)
Date published: 2019-03-18
  • y_2021, m_9, d_17, h_20
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_3.0.19
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_2, tr_81
  • loc_en_CA, sid_4680, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=SUBMISSION_TIME, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_teachco
  • bvseo_sdk, p_sdk, 3.2.1
  • CLOUD, getReviews, 18.26ms


Professor James Hall invites you on a 36-lecture, intellectual journey to explore the questions of divine existence which humankind has debated for centuries. You will find the tools of logic and argument the professor applies in this course offer benefits you can take far beyond the issue of God's existence or the broader subject of religion. Enjoy wrapping your mind around questions for which every potential answer triggers a new set of questions.


James Hall
James Hall

Philosophy is reflecting on why you think what you think, believe what you believe, and do what you do. Anyone can do it. Everyone should.


University of Richmond

Dr. James Hall is the James Thomas Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at the University of Richmond, where he taught for 40 years. He earned his B.A. from Johns Hopkins University, his Master of Theology from Southeastern Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. At the University of Richmond, Professor Hall was named Omicron Delta Kappa Faculty Member of the Year (2005) and Student Government Association Faculty Member of the Year (2005), and he received the University Distinguished Educator Award (2001). He has written many articles and essays and is the author of three books: Knowledge, Belief and Transcendence; Logic Problems; and Practically Profound: Putting Philosophy to Work in Everyday Life. Professor Hall specializes in 20th-century analytic philosophy, epistemology, logical empiricism, and the philosophy of religion. At Richmond, he was noted for developing cross-disciplinary courses combining physics, chemistry, economics, psychology, and literature with his own field of philosophy.

By This Professor

What is Philosophy?

01: What is Philosophy?

We examine philosophy as a practical matter, dispensing with a variety of misconceptions and then focusing on a variety of subjects for, and methods of, inquiry, allowing actual philosophy to be "done" in the lectures to come.

33 min
What is Religion?

02: What is Religion?

Because there are as many ideas of religion as there are societies—and perhaps even people—we narrow the definition, for the purposes of this course, to "ethical monotheism," the core of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, contrasting it to other ideas and bringing its most salient features into clear relief.

31 min
What is Philosophy of Religion?

03: What is Philosophy of Religion?

Notions of what philosophy of religion is are as varied as the definitions of religion itself. This lecture narrows the playing field, so that the best way in which philosophical analysis and synthesis can be brought to bear on religious belief and practice can emerge.

31 min
How is the Word "God" Generally Used?

04: How is the Word "God" Generally Used?

This lecture examines the presuppositions and implications of the common religious claim that there is or are one or more gods and offers close examination of the word itself and how it is used in a variety of settings.

31 min
How Do Various Theists Use the Word "God"?

05: How Do Various Theists Use the Word "God"?

The focus is narrowed from the polyglot of religious contexts explored in Lecture 4 to the use of the word in ethical monotheism, identifying presuppositions, internal logic, and the implications that are woven into this particular way of thinking.

30 min
What is Knowledge?

06: What is Knowledge?

To ask what can be known in religious contexts, and especially about the existence of god(s), requires being clear about what it is to know anything at all. We examine a wide array of things one might know, believe-but-not-know, doubt, disbelieve, or flatly deny as we begin an exploration of the traditional understanding of knowledge as "justified true belief."

30 min
What Kinds of Evidence Count?

07: What Kinds of Evidence Count?

If evidence is what makes the difference between mere belief and real knowledge, then it is important to discover what kind(s) of evidence work, as well as what quality of evidence is required for effectiveness in a given setting.

30 min
What Constitutes <em>Good</em> Evidence?

08: What Constitutes Good Evidence?

Even after identifying what kinds of evidence are preferable (e.g., firsthand experience over hearsay, coherent inference over free association), we still need to figure out the characteristics of evidence of a given kind that enable it, in a context, to move us from disbelief to belief, from opinion to solid knowledge.

30 min
Why <em>Argue</em> for the Existence of God?

09: Why Argue for the Existence of God?

This lecture introduces the cosmological, teleological, and ontological patterns of argument, illustrating the function of argument when one is trying to explain everyday events, and enumerating a few caveats to keep in mind when weighing the merits of the theists' arguments.

31 min
How Ontological Argument Works

10: How Ontological Argument Works

Is divine existence entailed by the very concept of godhood? To assert so is to argue ontologically, and this lecture focuses on arguments to that end put forth by both St. Anselm and Descartes—including a brief foray into geometry—to explain how ontological arguments work.

30 min
Why Ontological Argument is Said to Fail

11: Why Ontological Argument is Said to Fail

Several classical lines of argument hold that a priori arguments about matters of fact are generally sterile and that ontological arguments for the existence of God thus fail as well. An examination of these arguments prepares us for possibly more profitable efforts to infer the existence of God from the occurrence and/or nature of the world, rather than the meaning of a concept.

30 min
How Cosmological Argument Works

12: How Cosmological Argument Works

We examine the principle of explanation known as "sufficient reason" and its use in basing a case for divine existence on the existence of the world itself—the cosmological argument—as well as its use in everyday settings.

30 min
Why Cosmological Argument is Said to Fail

13: Why Cosmological Argument is Said to Fail

What happens when "Ockham's Razor,"a classical principle of philosophical restraint, is applied to sufficient reason and the cosmological arguments for divine existence? This lecture lays the groundwork for the consideration of a more sophisticated "sufficient reason" argument.

31 min
How Teleological Argument Works

14: How Teleological Argument Works

Is divine design apparent in nature itself? St. Paul thought so, as did William Paley. This lecture explores the use of "sufficient reason" arguments to claim that the detailed characteristics of the world and its commonplace events demand the inference of an obviously divine external cause.

30 min
How Teleological Argument Works (continued)

15: How Teleological Argument Works (continued)

Some teleological arguments offer God as the best explanation for not only the mere occurrence of the world and its general events, but for the occurrence of works that are special or even miraculous. Granting for the sake of argument that the events in question do occur, this lecture traces from them the inference of divine existence.

30 min
Why Teleological Argument is Said to Fail

16: Why Teleological Argument is Said to Fail

This lecture looks at a number of reasons why skeptics have found the teleological argument wanting, whether for what might be called "explanatory overkill" or for selective bias.

30 min
Divine Encounters Make Argument Unnecessary

17: Divine Encounters Make Argument Unnecessary

The failure of ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments to make their case for a god is of little concern to many ethical monotheists, who cite historical claims of "direct awareness" of God through "encounters"—a notion fleshed out in terms of both contemporary and historical experiences.

30 min
Divine Encounters Require Interpretation

18: Divine Encounters Require Interpretation

Continuing to assume the good faith of those who claim to have experienced divine encounters, this lecture focuses on a two-step line of rebuttal to the notion that direct, non-inferential knowledge of divine existence occurs in such encounters.

31 min
Why is Evil a Problem?

19: Why is Evil a Problem?

The occurrence of evil in the world has long been a basis for dismissing teleological arguments as inconclusive. But the presence of evil has another implication as well, not as grounds for rebutting teleological arguments for theism, but as grounds for affirming dysteleological arguments for atheism.

30 min
Taking Evil Seriously

20: Taking Evil Seriously

We continue to examine why evil constitutes such a problem for ethical monotheists, grouping into categories the arguments about evil that are said to lead to the conclusion that no god exists, and laying the groundwork for the rebuttals to those arguments that will be presented in the next four lectures.

30 min
Non-Justificatory Theodicies

21: Non-Justificatory Theodicies

Rebuttals to the argument from evil are called theodicies. Most try to justify the evils that occur. This lecture explores the more radical notion that no justification is required, either because no evils occur, or because those that do occur don't have anything to do with God or are logically unavoidable (and, hence, nobody's fault).

31 min
Justifying Evil

22: Justifying Evil

Theodicies that attempt to justify evils usually do so by claiming that they are necessary for the fulfillment of one or another greater good. This lecture lays the foundation for this line of argument, which will be further examined in the next two lectures in terms of both "natural" and "human" evils.

30 min
Justifying Natural Evil

23: Justifying Natural Evil

Clearly, bad things happen in this world, often with no discernible human involvement, lack of involvement, intention, or negligence. These "natural evils" provide ammunition for those who say the world's designer (if it has one) cannot be deserving of worship. This lecture examines four of the theodicies used to rebut such arguments.

30 min
Justifying Human Evil

24: Justifying Human Evil

The most widely cited theodicy for human evil (and, many claim, the most effective) relies on the idea that the possibility of such evil is a necessary precondition for human freedom and autonomy, which are of such great value that they balance out whatever evils their occurrence requires. Explaining and appraising this theodicy is the primary target of this lecture.

30 min
Evidence is Irrelevant to Faith

25: Evidence is Irrelevant to Faith

Does faith allow one to move beyond evidence and arguments? Are evidence and arguments, in fact, impediments to faith? This lecture examines several classical approaches to this line of thinking, with a preliminary look at a postmodern version that suggests religious faith constitutes its own paradigm, immune from external applications of evidence and argument.

31 min
Groundless Faith is Irrelevant to Life

26: Groundless Faith is Irrelevant to Life

We explore the way the notion of relevance works, showing that if the events that occur are irrelevant to the truth value of a claim, than the truth value of that claim is also irrelevant to the events that occur—a reciprocal relationship with important implications for the questions raised in this course.

30 min
God is Beyond Human Grasp, But That's O.K.

27: God is Beyond Human Grasp, But That's O.K.

The most radical disconnect between divine existence and the rules of ordinary cognition is voiced in the claim that god transcends the world and everything in it. This lecture explores three notions of transcendence and the implications each of them carries for knowing whether God exists and, if so, knowing God.

30 min
Transcendental Talk is "Sound and Fury"

28: Transcendental Talk is "Sound and Fury"

This lecture considers the implications of the "verificationist" contention (by Logical Positivists and others) that talk of God is vacuous because claims of a truly transcendent God can be neither proved nor disproved, as well as what such verificationism might have overlooked.

31 min
Discourse in an Intentionalist Paradigm

29: Discourse in an Intentionalist Paradigm

An introduction to paradigms and how they work prepares us to compare the paradigms with which ethical monotheism and natural science operate and consider how their respective inclusion and exclusion of intentionality as a category of understanding separates them.

30 min
Evaluating Paradigms

30: Evaluating Paradigms

If a paradigm is important in coming to grips with the world, it is important to use one that works. This lecture explores the criteria for assessing paradigms and then offers examples of how those criteria can be used to assess some sample paradigms in concrete applications.

30 min
Choosing and Changing Paradigms

31: Choosing and Changing Paradigms

There is no doubt that paradigm shifts occur, but there are several possible answers to the question of "how?" This lecture looks at whether one's paradigm can be "chosen"—an important issue that speaks to intentionality.

30 min
Language Games and Theistic Discourse

32: Language Games and Theistic Discourse

This lecture introduces Wittgenstein's notion of "language games" and explores its role in theistic discourse.

30 min
Fabulation—Theism as <em>Story</em>

33: Fabulation—Theism as Story

This lecture begins an analysis of religious discourse as fabulation: the telling of stories—myths, parables, fables, etc.—for a purpose; laying out the conditions for purposeful storytelling in everyday settings; drawing on familiar stories for examination; and examining religious discourse itself as purposeful storytelling.

31 min
Theistic Stories, Morality, and Culture

34: Theistic Stories, Morality, and Culture

We examine the hypothesis that the primary functions of ethical monotheists' stories are to identify, give weight to, and motivate moral behavior, as well as to underwrite the core culture of their societies. We also consider the counterhypothesis—that such stories, in fact, have a far different result.

30 min
Stories, Moral Progress, and Culture Reform

35: Stories, Moral Progress, and Culture Reform

The priestly and prophetic dimensions of ethical monotheism and its stories are added to the mix identified in the previous lecture, with interesting implications for the debate.

30 min
Conclusions and Signposts

36: Conclusions and Signposts

This lecture summarizes the philosophical reasoning undertaken through the previous lectures—and the conclusions this reasoning supports—and suggests some issues that invite continued philosophical reflection.

31 min