Abstract. This piece challenges Michael Ruse on three points: (1) The charge that Christian myth and doctrine are incredible fails to take into account the scholarship that has clarified the genre to which myth belongs and its function. (2) Naturalistic explanations, like Ruse's, have fully as much difficulty dealing with questions of purpose and evil as religion does. (3) The concept of “deception” has a number of inherent problems that Ruse fails to consider, of which the chief is that it requires a certainty about truth and falsity that Ruse cannot and does not claim to possess.
religion, trust, myth, Michael Ruse, meaning, altruism, deception
Hefner, P., (1994) “ENTRUSTING THE LIFE THAT HAS EVOLVED: A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL RUSE'S RUSE”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 29(1), 67–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1994.tb00649.x
Burhoe, Ralph Wendell. 1981. Toward a Scientific Theology. Belfast : Christian Journals.
Hefner, Philip. 1993a. “Biological Perspectives on Fall and Original Sin. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 28 (March): 77–101.
Hefner, Philip. 1993b. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion. Minneapolis : Fortress Press.
Scharlemann, Robert. 1991. The Reason of Following: Christology and the Ecstatic I. Chicago : Univ. of Chicago Press.