Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. H. H. Price

Abstract

Professor Price, distinguished as a theorist of perception and analyst of Hume's philosophy, twice president of the Society for Psychical Research, offers in his 1971 Sarum Lectures an approach, by a philosopher interested in psychical research, to some problems of the philosophy of religion: morality and religion, prayer, miracles, life after death.Judging for myself, as the author invites, whether he has "succeeded in providing that support for the Christian Faith which the statute requires of the Sarum Lecturer," I conclude that he has not. The philosophy is oversimplified, and the employment of psychical research is so sparse as to be inconsequential. If you do not already know what there is that is relevant to the philosophy of religion in the results of psychical research, do not seek it here; and if you do have that information, you will be confounded by Price's persistent failure to employ research data or even to indicate sources for it. The book is more of a gentle persuasion, on the basis of the "fit" by which certain paranormal phenomena might "explain" certain religious events, in favor of the existence of paranormal phenomena rather than in favor of the truth of the Christian faith.The six chapters are loosely connected by their religious subject matter and by animadversions on telepathy, telekinesis, and the like. The first, a commentary on " the beginning of wisdom [as] the fear of the Lord," sets out to explain that " the whole idea of providing morality with a 'theological foundation' is a mistake" (p. I7). Apparently, the point is that doing so involves some sort of misunderstanding of the nature of morality. I am not sure what Price takes the biblical passage to mean or whether he thinks he has established its meaning by philosophical reflection or armchair exegesis.

Patterns of geographic variation in Florida snakes / by Steven P. Christman.

“…More often than not, the phenotypes associated with peninsular populations are considered the more primitive. Does this mean that these species "originated" on the Florida peninsula (= island) and thence spread northward as Ross (1974) or Darlington (1957) might have us believe ? Croizat (1958), and Croizat et at.…”

“…One of the most often used rules states that the area occupied by the most primitive members of a group must be the area of origin for the group (Ross, 1974).…”