Abstract

This paper aims to expose seven views that function as assumptions in the philosophy of religion but should not do so, where the norms governing "should", "may permissibly" and "should not" are those appropriate to philosophical inquiry. I'll show how deeply the seven views have found their way into contemporary philosophy of religion precisely as assumptions, treated in the relevant manner both by many believing and by many nonbelieving philosophers. Finally I'll argue that these views, despite their popularity and influence, make bad assumptions.