Scaling the Secular City by J.P. Moreland

During my prep for Sunday I re-read several chapters from JP Moreland’s Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. I first came into contact with this book my sophomore year of college. While it is some 20 years old at this point, I still think it is the best single volume evidentiary apologetic out there.

I need also to point out my own bias. JP Moreland is someone who has influenced my thinking greatly. To make a very long story short, after my undergrad I was set to enter Talbot’s Philosophy Program having to withdraw just weeks prior due to financial aid constraints. I only mention that because it indicates my own biases.

Moreland is one of those disgusting individuals who is multi-talented intellectually. Having a background in the hard sciences, advanced degrees in theology, and a PhD in Philosophy from USC under Dallas Willard which makes him entirely capable of this task. His areas of most fervent research in recent years has been the Philosophy of Mind. And in his chapter on the argument from the mind you will discover a good example of a defense for substance dualism (which is passe in some theological circles nowadays).

Moreland’s book follows some very familiar territory in his book and chapters range from the Kalam Cosmological Argument to the Historicity of the NT to Science and Christianity. Though the book is 20 years old I did notice some updates in the most recent printing from older versions, specifically in the chapter on the cosmological argument. I am unsure, however, how pervasive the changes have been - at the very least not significant enough to warrant a new preface outlining them.

Some criticism has been brought, for good reason, because of Moreland’s heavy leaning to conservative intellectuals, specifically in his chapter on the the NT and the Resurrection. In my estimation I think this should be chalked up to 1) this is one of his early works and 2) those areas are a bit outside his specialty. You notice a marked shift in footnotes in those more technical philosophical and scientific chapters. But that said, I don’t think it negates the value of this extremely helpful book.

It must also be noted that this book is certainly at an intermediate level. This isn’t a light read while sitting on the pot. But it is not entirely inaccessible either. I first read it as a first year philosophy student with barely any categories in philosophical study. And while I had to re-read many paragraphs and chapters I was able to plow my way through it. If I can do it, you can do it. So if you are somewhat familiar with philosophical apologetics this will be a great intermediate level read for you.