ABSTRACT
It has been my aim through this book to provide a holistic interpretation of Religion, one that is governed by a unifying principle, that is able to give due consideration to the role of each part to the whole, and is able to defend the philosophical theology developed throughout. As we progressed through the text, we had occasion to discuss a few of the more prominent objections that appear in the secondary literature. Many of these objections target specific issues: how the Propensity to Evil can be both innate and chosen, how Kant’s conception of grace is compatible with Divine justice, and so forth. Various more general criticisms were also mentioned: John Hare’s declaration that Religion is a “Failure”; Gordon Michalson’s contention that the text “wobbles” back and forth between conflicting Christian and Enlightenment commitments; and also the contemporary trend that deflates Kant’s positive philosophy of religion, treating it as if it were a sort of Error Theory.
