Preparation for Quiz #4

We have a quiz Wednesday, February 24. You will be responsible for the following information:

Define:

knowledge
correspondence theory of truth
coherence theory of truth
pragmatic theory of truth
source skepticism
radical scepticism
basic belief
Evidentialist principle
Principle of Belief Conservation
rationalism
empiricism

Be able to answer the following questions:

1) Explain the three theories of truth.

2) What is source skepticism? What is radical skepticism? How can we overcome them? (that is, how can we keep them from "shutting us down" as knowers?)

3.) What is a "basic belief?" Can it be proven? Why are basic beliefs important?

2) What is the Evidentialist Principle? Discuss it in detail, noting what its impact is for Christians, and whether it is consistent with itself or whether it is self-defeating.

3) What is the Principle of Belief Conservation? Discuss in detail, explaining its significance.

Rubric for Grading Your Papers

F "Failure – no credit"

o Extreme lack of clarity or coherence of expression or thought.
o Thesis absent
o Frequent spelling/grammatical/format mistakes
o Disregard for the objectives and requirements of the assignment.
o Absent or irrelevant use of the relevant course readings.
o Submission of another’s words or thoughts as if they were your own, whether in the form of plagiarism or failure to acknowledge the source of an idea or expression.
o Anything less than 59 points

D "Work of inferior quality, but passing"

o Minimal or deficient thesis
o Unclear or incoherent expression or argument
o Failure to satisfy the requirements of the assignment.
o Inadequate understanding of the relevant course readings.
o Inadequate acknowledgment or citation of the sources of your expressions or ideas.
o Frequent spelling /grammatical/format mistakes.
o Ranges from 60-69 points; lower the points, lower the D

C "Satisfactory work"

o Basic thesis
o Basic clarity and coherence of expression and argument.
o Adequate understanding of the views expressed in the relevant course readings and the arguments provided in support of those views.
o Clear, coherent expression of an evaluation of the views and arguments expressed in the relevant course readings.
o Minimally appropriate acknowledgment and citation of the sources of your expressions and ideas.
o Several spelling /grammar/style/format mistakes.
o Ranges from 70-79 points; lower the points, lower the C

B "Noteworthy level of performance"

Demonstrates all of the qualities of satisfactory work, as well as:
o Clear thesis that prevents vagueness later on paper.
o Above average clarity and coherence of expression and argument.
o Clear, logical organization of the essay’s introduction, body, and conclusion.
o Clear, detailed, accurate understanding of the views expressed in the relevant course readings and the arguments offered in support of those views.
o Adequate attempt to provide argumentative support for your evaluation of the views and arguments expressed in the relevant course readings.
o Few spelling/grammar/style/format mistakes
o Ranges from 80-89 points; lower the points, lower the B

A "Outstanding achievement and an unusual degree of intellectual initiative"

Demonstrates all of the qualities of noteworthy performance, as well as:
o Strong, clear thesis
o Excellent clarity and coherence of expression and argument.
o Originality of interpretation, explanation, argumentation, or criticism.
o None or one: spelling/grammar/style/format mistakes
o Ranges from 90-100 points, lower the points, lower the A

How to Write your Philosophy Paper

DUE: March 10, 2o10 1:00 pm
LENGTH: 5-6 pages, not including title and bibiliography pages
STYLE: MLA
SOURCES: must use at least 3; two of which must be print

Excellent links:
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper by Jim Pryor
Tips on Writing a Philosophy Paper by Douglas W. Portmore
How to Write a Philosophy Paper by Amy Kind
How to Write a Philosophy Paper by Ashley McDowell



I. Decide on a question you want to wonder about.

A. Please limit your questions to metaphysical or epistemological ones; DO NOT consider ethical questions, as those will be dealt with next quarter in a separate class. DO NOT write about free will or determinism issues; we've already done those in debate. (However, for the purposes of explaining this paper, I will use that topic.)

B. Example: “I wonder whether human beings are free or not.”

C. A good resource to help you: Invitation to Philosophy, Issues and Options, by Honer, Hunt and Ockholm, or any other introduction to philosophy in the library. Ask Priscilla for help.

II. If necessary, do some research to get an idea of some ways that question might be answered.

A. Warning: remember that philosophy papers are not research papers, but are more properly persuasive or argumentative papers
1. The research is not an end in itself; rather, it is a launching pad to discover various positions on the problem.
2. Research can help to clarify concepts that are integral to a position.
3. Use at least 3 sources, two of which must be print.

B. Again, Priscilla can be a tremendous help here, or ask me for resources.

C. Example:
1. You discover that there are several answers/positions on the problem of free will: various deterministic positions, compatibilism, and libertarianism.
2. You discover that there are different ways of referring to the same position: i.e., “soft determinism” and “compatibilism” mean the same thing.

III. Narrow your answers down to the two strongest contenders (in your opinion) and write as many reasons/arguments as you can that would support each position.

A. For position A:
1. Some of those reasons/arguments will be positive ones showing why position A is correct.
2. Others will be negative reasons/arguments, showing why position B is wrong.

B. For position B:
1. Some of those reasons/arguments will be positive ones showing why position B is correct.
2. Others will be negative reasons/arguments, showing why position A is wrong.

C. Explain the reasons/arguments in detail for each position.
1. Settle on what vocabulary/concepts you want to use and don’t vary them.
2. Lay out the arguments clearly, concisely. Try putting them in “standard” form, with premises and conclusions. That guarantees clarity!

IV. Evaluate those positions.

A. Which position do you think has the best (cogent or sound) arguments?
1. What makes them good? (cogent or sound)
2. Explain how those arguments overcome the other position.

B. Which position do you think has the worst (uncogent or unsound) arguments?
1. What makes them bad? (uncogent or unsound)
2. Explain those arguments are “knocked over” by other position.


V. Write your concluding paragraph, including any further observations or connections you want to make.

VI. LAST OF ALL: Write your thesis statement and opening introductory paragraph

A. Your first sentence should plunge the reader into the debate by clearly stating your position on the problem: Hit the ground running!

B. This is not a lit paper. Spare, clean and clear are better than rhetorical and verbose.

1. Avoid use of the second person.
2. DO NOT say "I feel that..." instead say, "I think" or "I hold" or "I maintain" or "I conclude" or ANYTHING that demonstrates that you are reasoning, rather than emoting.


2. Theron Schlabach offers the following wise advice:

Avoid self-conscious discussion of your intended purposes, your strategy, your sources, and your research methodology.

Draw your reader's attention to the points you are making, not to yourself and all the misery and sweat of your process of research and writing. Keep the focus on what you have to say, not on the question of how you hope to develop and say it. Do not parade around in your mental underwear. Show only the well-pressed and well-shined final product.

Was Tolkein Rational?

Apropos our unit on epistemology (as we consider relation of opinion to knowledge, and the defintion of knowledge), here's a quote from Humphrey Carpenter's Tolkien: The Authorized Biography, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1977:

"As Tolkein grew older, many of his characteristics became more deeply marked. The hasty way of talking, the bad articulation and the parenthetic sentences grew to be more pronounced. Attitudes long held, such as his dislike of French cooking, became absurd caricatures of themselves. What he once wrote of prejudices held by C.S. Lewis could have been said of himself in old age: 'He had several, some ineradicable, being based on ignorance but impenetrable by information." At the same time he had nothing like so many prejudices as Lewis, nor is 'prejudice' exactly the right word, for it implies that his actions were based upon these opinions, whereas in truth his stranger beliefs rarely had any bearing on his behavior. It was not so much a matter of prejudice as the habit...of making dogmatic assertions about things of which he knew very little."

PREPARATION for Quiz #3

Quiz #3 will be held Friday, 2/13

A. You should be able to define the following concepts:

esssential property
nonessential property
common property
fully God
fully human
merely human
personal immortality
personal reconstruction
personal resurrection
problem of identification
problem of individuation
compatibilism
libertarianism
theological determinism
scientific determinism
freedom (compatibilist definition)
freedom (libertarian definition)
Principle of Universal Causality

B. You should be able to answer the following questions:

1) What are three ways of framing the possibility of life after death, and how do they depend upon how one understands what it means to be a human being ? (from class discussion)

2) How can Christians rationally hold that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man? (cf. Nash, Ch. 5, pp. 99-106; class discussion)

3) Compare and contrast compatibilism and libertarianism. Which position do you think is more Biblical? Why?

The Greatest Christian Philosopher of our Day Retires

ALVIN PLANTINGA RETIREMENT CELEBRATION
May 20–22, 2010
University of Notre Dame
Center for Continuing Education (McKenna Hall)


In 1980, Time magazine reported on the remarkable resurgence of religious philosophy. Using a 'kind of tough-minded intellectualism', Christian philosophers, it was reported, have stemmed the rising tide of strict empiricism. This quiet revolution was led by Alvin Plantinga, John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, whom the article describes as 'the leading philosopher of God.'

It would be difficult to overestimate the hostility towards theism among professional philosophers over the past seventy years. The swell of empiricism was thought to sound the death knell of religious belief. From the 1930s to the 1960s religious philosophers went into hiding. What happened from the 1960s to the 1980s to so radically transform the face of philosophy? Few philosophers today fail to recognize the courageous, original and powerful work of Alvin Plantinga as the impetus behind this revolution in philosophy. His first book, God and Other Minds, was an astonishing and potent defense of the rationality of religious belief. His next two major works, The Nature of Necessity and God, Freedom and Evil, included an original argument for the existence of God and a novel and universally recognized solution to the problem of evil.

Plantinga, who taught for twenty years at Calvin College, was one of the co-founders of the Society of Christian Philosophers in April 1978. The society has since grown to over 1,100 members and is the largest single-interest group among American philosophers. In 1984 the society initiated its own scholarly journal, Faith and Philosophy. His inaugural lecture for the O'Brien Chair of Philosophy, 'How to Be a Christian Philosopher', was published as the lead article in the premier issue of Faith and Philosophy and changed the course of Christian philosophy. Philosophers from such leading universities as Yale, Harvard, Rutgers, UCLA, Princeton, and Oxford attribute their subsequent scholarly projects in Christian philosophy to that lecture.

He has lectured around the world and has been admirable in his devotion to furthering philosophical research in developing countries, such as China, Russia, Romania, and Poland.

Plantinga has helped make religious belief once again a rationally acceptable option. His enduring contributions are: the free will defense in response to the deductive argument from evil, the ontological argument for the existence of God, the rationality of belief in God without the support of arguments, and a theistic theory of knowledge. Those interested in creating intellectual breathing room for religious belief are grateful to the work of Alvin Plantinga.

We will honor Alvin Plantinga with a retirement celebration that looks back on his tremendous accomplishments and forward to the future of the above topics as they’ve been influenced by Plantinga.

This conference is generously supported by the John Templeton Foundation, the Society of Christian Philosophers, Calvin College, and the University of Notre Dame.

Assignment for Feb. 8: God and Free Will

I promised you all that we would address the question of God's omniscience, foreknowledge and human freedom. Please read all the pages on this website for Monday, February 8.

The problem can be stated this way:

(1) If God exists, then God is omniscient.
(2) If God is omniscient, then God foreknows future human actions.
(3) If God foreknows future human actions, then humans are not free.
(4) Humans are free.

Therefore: (choose one)

(5) God does not foreknow future human actions. [from 3, 4, & modus tollens]
or else
(6) God is not omniscient. [from 2, 5, & modus tollens]
or else
(7) God does not exist. [from 1, 6, & modus tollens]

Since this argument is a valid deductive argument, the only way to escape the conclusion is to deny one of the premises of the argument. Below are some of the ways one can deny the premises of this argument.

Denial of Premise (1): Functional Theism or Process Theism
Denial of Premise (2): Divine Timelessness or Open Theism
Denial of Premise (3): Molinism or Ockhamism
Denial of Premise (4): Theological Fatalism (=what we are calling Theological Determinism in our class)

VIDEO: Free Will and Physics

YOu can read a transcript of this video here