Preparation for Quiz #5

Quiz #5 will be held Friday, 3/12

It will cover:
Sire, Chapters 2-6, 9
Handouts:
“Worldview Chart”
“Deism and Naturalism”
Nihilism and Existentialism
“Postmodernism”
“Theism, Modernism, Postmodernism”

You should be able to:

A. define the following concepts:

• phenomena


• noumena


• Deism


• Naturalism


• Nihilism


• Theistic Existentialism


• Atheistic Existentialism


• Nihilism

B. Answer the following questions:

• Compare and contrast Christian Theism and Naturalism. How can a Christian argue against Naturalism, besides appealing to special revelation (the Bible)?


• How does Kant’s distinction between noumena and phenomena pave the way for these two worldviews: Naturalism and Existentialism? Discuss.


• What are the Nihilist’s criticisms of Naturalism? (Discuss the epistemological, metaphysical and moral inconsistencies)


• What are the ways Existentialism fails as a worldview? Discuss in detail.


• Compare and contrast theistic and atheistic existentialism.


• How is theistic existentialism different from Christian theism? How is it alike?


• What are some characteristics of postmodernism, according to philosophers (as opposed to theologians and literary critics?)


• How would you contrast "modernism" and "postmodernism?"


• How would you contrast "premodernism" and "postmodernism."


• If you couldn't be a Theist, which worldview would you embrace? Why?


• Besides Postmodernism, which of these worldviews do you think most people in the U.S. hold: Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism? Explain in detail.

QUOTE: C.S. Lewis on Premodernism and (Post)Modernism

C. S. Lewis concisely presents the modern problem:

"For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life was how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. For the modern, the cardinal problem is how to conform reality to the wishes of man, and the solution is a technique." --Peter Kreeft, "Back to Virtue"

Defining Postmodernism

How do you name the fog?
These two pages give it a try.

1) "Defining Postmodernism," by James Morley
http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0242.html

What is postmodernism?
Firstly, postmodernism was a movement in architecture that rejected the modernist, avant garde, passion for the new. Modernism is here understood in art and architecture as the project of rejecting tradition in favour of going "where no man has gone before" or better: to create forms for no other purpose than novelty. Modernism was an exploration of possibilities and a perpetual search for uniqueness and its cognate--individuality. Modernism's valorization of the new was rejected by architectural postmodernism in the 50's and 60's for conservative reasons. They wanted to maintain elements of modern utility while returning to the reassuring classical forms of the past. The result of this was an ironic brick-a-brack or collage approach to construction that combines several traditional styles into one structure. As collage, meaning is found in combinations of already created patterns.

Following this, the modern romantic image of the lone creative artist was abandoned for the playful technician (perhaps computer hacker) who could retrieve and recombine creations from the past--data alone becomes necessary. This synthetic approach has been taken up, in a politically radical way, by the visual, musical,and literary arts where collage is used to startle viewers into reflection upon the meaning of reproduction. Here, pop-art reflects culture (American). Let me give you the example of Californian culture where the person--though ethnically European, African, Asian, or Hispanic--searches for authentic or "rooted" religious experience by dabbling in a variety of religious traditions. The foundation of authenticity has been overturned as the relativism of collage has set in. We see a pattern in the arts and everyday spiritual life away from universal standards into an atmosphere of multidimentionality and complexity, and most importantly--the dissolving of distinctions. In sum, we could simplistically outline this movement in historical terms:

1. premodernism: Original meaning is possessed by authority (for example, the Catholic Church). The individual is dominated by tradition.

2. modernism: The enlightenment-humanist rejection of tradition and authority in favour of reason and natural science. This is founded upon the assumption of the autonomous individual as the sole source of meaning and truth--the Cartesian cogito. Progress and novelty are valorized within a linear conception of history--a history of a "real" world that becomes increasingly real or objectified. One could view this as a Protestant mode of consciousness.

3. postmodernism: A rejection of the sovereign autonomous individual with an emphasis upon anarchic collective, anonymous experience. Collage, diversity, the mystically unrepresentable, Dionysian passion are the foci of attention. Most importantly we see the dissolution of distinctions, the merging of subject and object, self and other. This is a sarcastic playful parody of western modernity and the "John Wayne" individual and a radical, anarchist rejection of all attempts to define, reify or re-present the human subject.

2) R.R. Wesley Hurd; "Postmodernism: A New Model of Reality" http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/philosophy/articles/postmod.html

(excerpt)
Looking to man and not God, the optimism of modernism has proven itself ill-founded. The response has been postmodernism. The best Christian book on postmodernism that I have found is A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz. In this article, however, I will have to describe postmodernism more briefly, which I will do by looking at five presuppositions inherent in the postmodern worldview:

(1) The quest for truth is a lost cause. It is a search for a "holy grail" that doesn't exist and never did. Postmodernists argue that objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search for Truth are "truths" that were compelling only in their own time and culture, but true Truth has never been ours. Furthermore, if we make the mistake of claiming to know the Truth, we are deluded at best and dangerous at worst.

(2) A person's sense of identity is a composite constructed by the forces of the surrounding culture. Individual consciousness--a vague, "decentered" collection of unconscious and conscious beliefs, knowledge, and intuitions about oneself and the world--is malleable and arrived at through interaction with the surrounding culture. Postmodernism then, in stark contrast to modernism, is about the dissolving of the self. From the postmodernist perspective, we should not think of ourselves as unique, unified, self-conscious, autonomous persons.

(3) The languages of our culture (the verbal and visual signs we use to represent the world to ourselves) literally "construct" what we think of as "real" in our everyday existence. In this sense, reality is a "text" or "composite" of texts, and these texts (rather than the God-created reality) are the only reality we can know. Our sense of self--who we are, how we think of ourselves, as well as how we see and interpret the world and give ourselves meaning in it--is subjectively constructed through language.

(4) "Reality" is created by those who have power. One of postmodernism's preeminent theorists, Michel Foucault, combines the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas about how those in power shape the world with a theory of how language is the primary tool for making culture. Foucault argues that whoever dominates or controls the "official" use of language in a society holds the key to social and political power. (Think, for example, of how official political "spin" control of specific words and phrases can alter the public perception of political decisions, policies, and events.) Put simply, Nietzsche said all reality is someone's willful, powerful construction; Foucault says language is the primary tool in that construction.

(5) We should neutralize the political power inherent in language by "deconstructing" it. Another leading postmodernist, Jacques Derrida, theorizes that the language we use when we make statements always creates a set of opposite beliefs, a "binary," one of which is "privileged" and the other of which is "marginalized," and the privileged belief is always favored. For example, if one says "Honey is better for you than white sugar," this statement of opinion has "privileged" honey over white sugar. In the arena of morals one might say "Sex should only happen in marriage," in which case the experience of sex in marriage is "privileged" and sex out of wedlock is "marginalized." Derrida argues that all language is made up of these binaries, and they are always socially and politically loaded. "Deconstruction" is the practice of identifying these power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or "unprivileged" end of the binary can be consciously focused upon and favored.

Evaluating Postmodernism

What 's good/true about postmodernism? What's false and bad about postmodernism?

1)It offers a powerful critique of the autonomy and total sufficiency of human reason

Whereas Modernism spawned unbridled intellectual pride, Postmodernism can provide us with a much-needed dose of intellectual humility. It makes for a fabulous philosophical laxative! However, you can't live on laxatives!

Premodernism:
God says, "I AM," therefore everything else can exist."
Modernism:
Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am."
Postmodernism:
Derrida says, "There is no self, only linguistic constructs."

But if I am only a linguistic construct, why should we worry about being constructed one way rather than another? Indeed, how is it even possible?

2)It reminds us that language is indeed closely associated with power.

However, saying that "all linguistic utterances are power plays" is self-refuting. It tells us that we have no reason to prefer one discourse/story/narrative/worldview over another, leading to intellectual and moral anarchy. As Hauerwas says, "Who told you the story that there is no Story?" The rejection of all metanarratives is itself a metanarrative.

2) It alerts us to the limitations of our perspective

In idolizing reason, Modernism ignored the fact that our environment does shape us in various ways. Postmodernism can encourage us to see how our culture forms us through various "metanarratives." It tells us that we have no access to reality: there is no knowable connection betweeen what we think and say with what is actually "out there." All we can do is "tell stories."

It is one thing to admit that our knowledge is not infinite and perfect, and that much of what we "know" is given to us by our culture. However, when it emphasizes culture as the exclusive cause of our knowledge and values, Postmodernism leads to metaphysical, epistemological and moral relativism. It continues the modernist habit of anti-realism, denying that there is an external world which we are able to know more or less accurately. and denying that there is any special revelation that enables us to know anything with certainty. The truth is no longer "out there" or even "within." Like God, truth is dead. All that can possibly remain is "meaning."

How to write a Philosophy Paper

A philosophy paper is different from a paper for a history, lit or Bible class. It's likely this is the first time you have ever written this sort of paper, so it will feel a bit strange, but that's what education is about, right? Learning new things. Here's your chance to learn a new skill.

Philosophy papers require not just research, but argument.
They are persuasive, attempting to convince the reader to accept the writer's position on some issue/question.

SO:
1) begin with a question.

Look at the texts on reserve for this class to find some examples of potential questions you might wish to explore, and settle on one. Since there is an ethics class being offered next quarter, please do not write on any ethical topics. Also, I would prefer if you did not write on freewill or determinism, unless you run your outline by me first.

Example: "Do all roads lead to God?"

2) Research your question.

How have people answered it? What reasons/arguments have they given for their answer? What reasons,/arguments have the given against other positions (See previous blog entries for more details about reliable sources for information)

Example:

• Some people say all roads lead to God (Pluralists)
• Others say there is only one way (i.e, Mohammad, or Jesus)
• Others say that "even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved"

3) Narrow your topic

You only have 5-7 pages you need to write, so it usually works best to narrow yourself to two possible positions, and compare and contrast them.

Example: I want to discuss exlusivism and pluralism.

4) Make an outline using this template, and then "fill it out" clearly, concisely, and completely:

I. Introduction

A. First sentence should be your thesis statement: what is your position? (remember, be clear, consise and complete!)

B. Then, to involve your reader, explain the importance of this issue/question, or why it interests you, and/or give a brief summary of the direction you will be arguing and who you will be arguing against.

Example:

"In this paper, I will argue that there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ."

II. Clarify concepts

Are there any terms or concepts that might need to be agreed upon? Specify how you will be defining them in this paper.

Example:

Exclusivism means.....X; Pluralism means .....Y

II. Present your position and arguments for it

A. Repeat your thesis

Example:

The only way to God is exclusively through Jesus Christ.

B. Support it with arguments that are cogent or sound.

Example:

This is because.....(argument #1)
This is also because (argument #2) and so on.

C. Go through the "back door" rather than the "front door." That is, don't argue directly from the authority of Scripture; rather, argue from experience,or reason; find some way that your argument could appeal to a non-believer, if necessary.

III. Present opponents' position and arguments for it and/or against you

A. Briefly state your opponent's thesis
B. Give reasons for this thesis

example:
Pluralism is right is because....(counterargument #1)
Pluralism is right also because (counterargument #2) and so on.


C. Go through the "back door" rather than the "front door." That is, don't argue directly from the authority of Scripture; rather, argue from experience,or reason; find some way that your argument could appeal to a non-believer, if necessary.

IV. Respond to your opponent's arguments

example:

Pluralism is wrong because...(counter-counterargument #1)
Pluralism is also wrong because (counter-counterargument #2) and so on.

V. Conclusion:

what is the significance of taking your position? What difference does it make if you adopt one position rather than another?

Example:

If pluralism is correct, then there really is no need for missions. However, if exclusivism is correct, then we MUST evangelize as many people as possible....

C. Go through the "back door" rather than the "front door." That is, don't argue directly from the authority of Scripture; rather, argue from experience,or reason; find some way that your argument could appeal to a non-believer, if necessary.

Resources for your Paper

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
you can browse the table of contents for potential paper topics

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/home/welcome/
Look to the right, and you can browse by topic
History of Philosophy
16th Century European
17th Century European
18th Century European
19th Century European
Ancient Philosophy
History Misc.
History of Analytic Philosophy
Medieval Philosophy
Philosophers
▶Metaphysics & Epistemology
Epistemology
Metaphysics
Mind & Cognitive Science
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Religion
▶Philosophical Traditions
American Philosophy
Chinese Philosophy
Continental Philosophy
Feminist Philosophy
Indian Philosophy
Islamic Philosophy
Tradition Misc.
▶Science, Logic, & Mathematics
Logic
Philosophy of Mathematics
Philosophy of Science
▶Value Theory
Aesthetics
Bioethics
Ethics
Philosophy of Law
Political Philosophy
Value Misc.

Episteme
http://www.epistemelinks.com/

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

Preparation for Quiz #2: Metaphysics, Mind and Body

The next test will be Friday, January 29.

By now, you should be able to:

1) define the following concepts:
• monism
• dualism
• compound theory
• epiphenomenalism
• materialism

• parallelism
• occasionalism
• pre-established harmony

2) Answer the following questions:

• Discuss various ways people have answered the question, "what is reality?" this, Be sure to deal with these questions:
a. Is change real or an illusion?
b. is what is real reducible to one thing, or more than one thing?


If it is more than one thing, what kinds of things?

• Contrast Heraclitus’ and Parmenides’ views of reality. How does their “philosophical personality” color their conclusions? What are the consequences of their ideas?

• What is Plato's theory of Forms? (or, asked another way...)
• How does Plato explain diversity and change?

• What is the relationship between mind and body? Discuss in detail: 1) materialist 2) dualist positions. Which do you think is the Christian view? Why?

• Discuss the various theories people have given to explain how mind and body interact, or do not interact. Which seems most plausible to you?

• Discuss one or more of Morris’ arguments supporting the view that to be human means to simply be a body (materialism).

• Discuss one or more of Morris’ arguments supporting the view that to be human means to be both a body and a mind/soul (dualism).

• Discuss one or more of Morris’ arguments, showing why the materialist view fails.

• Discuss one or more of Morris’ arguments showing why the dualist view fails.

The Mind-Body Problem

1) Fred Freddoso has an article entitled "Good News, Your Soul Hasn't Died Yet," at http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/soul.htm
Freddoso is professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and a committed Catholic. Below is a portion of this
article, a paper he read at a plenary session of the 2001 meeting of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. Fredosso rejects both dualism and physicalism, claiming that "Human beings are unified substances with an immaterial formal principle" (what I've called a "compound theory").

Dualism denies our essential embodiedness and animality, while physicalism cannot account for the self that tries to study itself. In both cases, the human self is isolated from its physical surroundings and can very easily come to see itself as the sole source of whatever value and significance is had by an otherwise meaningless corporeal reality. In short, the last four centuries, despite the splendor of their scientific achievements, seem to have left many in confusion about just what human beings are and about just what value to assign to human life and action--a confusion which contemporary political liberalism simply (but not coincidentally) takes for granted, and the results of which are being played out in what Pope John Paul II has called the "culture of death."

...What we need, then, is the conceptual space to forge a metaphysical alternative to physicalism and dualism that gives us some hope of overcoming the intellectual, moral, and social consequences of them both.

2) Nancy Murphey, professor at Fuller, argues for "non-reductive physicalism" at http://www.counterbalance.net/neuro/neurintro-frame.html Though she resists it, I cannot see any difference between what she is calling "non-reductive physicalism" and epiphenomenalism.
Be aware that her presentation of medieval philosophy (and Thomas Aquinas in particular) is superficial at best.

The Person in Hebrew Scriptures
http://www.counterbalance.net/neuro/hewbrew-frame.html

It is now widely agreed that the predominant understanding of the human being in the Hebrew scriptures is holistic and nonreductive physicalist. Jewish scholar Neil Gillman writes:
Biblical anthropology knows nothing of this dualistic picture of a person which claims that a human being is a composite of two entities, a material body and a spiritual or non-material soul. . . .
The [Hebrew] Bible, in contrast, portrays each human as a single entity, clothed in clay-like flesh which is animated or vivified by a life-giving spark or impulse variously called ruah, nefesh, neshamah, or nishmat hayyim. . . .
In the later tradition, these terms came to be understood as synonymous with the Greek "soul." But this identification is not in the Bible.
For example, nefesh first meant neck or throat; by extension it signified a living being. Neshamah and ruah both mean breath or wind. Since death is the going out of the breath, it was possible to identify "something that goes out when one dies" with Plato's soul.

The Person in The New Testament
http://www.counterbalance.net/neuro/nt-frame.html

There is somewhat less agreement on New Testament conceptions of human nature. Most scholars now agree that the New Testament generally supports a holistic and nonreductive physicalist account of the person. However, some argue that the New Testament presupposes dualism, since there are a few passages appearing to support a doctrine of "the intermediate state." This intermediate state, it is said, assures Christians that between death and the general resurrection they survive to await judgment. Therefore, the person must be "constructed in such a way that at death it can `come apart,' with the conscious personal part continuing to exist while the organism disintegrates." Some of the biblical texts cited to support this are Matthew 10:28; Matthew 27:50; Luke 16:19-31; Luke 23:42-43; John 12:25; 1 Peter. 3:19-20; and Revelations 6:9-11. Several questions have to be settled in regard to these texts and their relevance for the "intermediate state." Again, one question concerns translation. For example, when it is said of Jesus in Mt. 27:50 that he "gave up his spirit," is this to be taken literally, or as a metaphorical way of saying that he died?
Second, Christians have had to distinguish between the teaching of Scripture and the assumptions, concepts, and theories of the time they were used to convey the teachings. In other words, it is common to speak of God's revelation being accommodated to the thought-forms of the ancient cultures. An important example is the use of -- or accommodation to -- ancient cosmology throughout the Old Testament, as when Isaiah says that God will gather Israel and Judah from "the four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12). So if it is shown that the New Testament speaks of an intermediate state -- or otherwise presumes some sort of dualism -- an important question to raise is whether this is biblical teaching or merely accommodation to the thought of the times. That is, we have to ask whether metaphorical language was used to convey theological truths that could not have been conveyed very well in other thought-forms at the time.
It may be most accurate to say that the New Testament has no explicit teaching on this issue. Rather, various New Testament writers assumed one or another conception of the constitution of the human being in order to teach about other issues concerning the relation of humans to one another, to the rest of creation, and to God.

Implications Of A Nonreductive Physicialist View
http://www.counterbalance.net/evp-mind/concl-frame.html

Both Judaism and Christianity apparently began with a concept of human nature that comes closer to contemporary nonreductive physicalism than to Platonic dualism. But, both made accommodations to a prevailing dualistic philosophy, and combined a doctrine of the immortality of the soul with a doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The pressing question now, concerns whether to return to those earlier nonreductive physicalist accounts of human nature, as many Christian theologians have urged throughout this century.
If a nonreductive physicalist view of the person is acceptable theologically and biblically, as well as scientifically and philosophically, a variety of consequences follow in the fields of ethics, spiritual development, medicine, and psychotherapy.
For example, many arguments against abortion depend on when the human soul is presumed to appear. If the soul is present from the moment of conception, then abortion at any stage of pregnancy is full-scale murder. This argument no longer makes sense with a nonreductive physicalist account of the person, in which there is no soul upon which one's humanity depends. Similar sorts of issues arise with regard to euthanasia. It is certainly true that the concept of the soul has been valuable for ethical purposes; it needs to be shown that equally powerful arguments can be constructed using the nonreductive physicalist account of personhood. For example, Jesus' injunction to care for the "least of the brethren" (Matthew 25:40) can be applied supremely to children before they are born, as well as to the elderly at the end of their life. Notice that in Jesus' parable the emphasis is not on saving the souls of those who are in distress, but rather, on meeting their bodily needs for food, water, clothing, and companionship.
Spiritual formation throughout most of Christian history has presupposed a Platonic conception of the person. It has often been understood, for instance, that "mortification of the flesh" is necessary for the flourishing of the soul. It is likely that a nonreductive physicalist account of the person will lead to healthier and more effective approaches to spiritual life.
Psychotherapists have already come to realize the dependence of psychological health on physical health, such as when a serious illness leads to depression. Equally important is the less-frequently recognized dependence of physical health on psychological and spiritual factors. This includes, for example, the role of stress (a psychological factor) in causing ulcers, high blood pressure, and other psychosomatic ailments. Spiritual factors, such as resentment resulting from an inability to forgive others, also play a significant role in affecting one's physical health. Increasingly, studies are finding that prayer and church attendance are associated with better health. A nonreductive physicalist conception of the person can be expected to promote a more integrative practice in a variety of health-care professions. That is, it will not be possible to compartmentalize the person and to conclude that physicians treat only physical illnesses, psychologists only mental illnesses, and pastoral counselors only spiritual ills

Preparation for Quiz #1

Quiz #1 will be given Friday, January 15.

Some tips:

• You will choose to write on one of two essay questions, and have @ 20 minutes to do so.
• One question will be from the readings, in case you are a visual learner who does better learning on your own.
• One question will be from the lecture/discussion, in case you are an auditory learner who does better learning in a group.
• Budget your time by first making a brief outline in the margin of your paper, before you write anything. You can figure that by the 10 minute point you should at least be halfway through your outline. This keeps you from belaboring a point, and makes sure you cover all points.
• You will be graded on how well you achieve the following goals: clarity, conciseness, completeness. DON'T PAD YOUR ANSWERS.

Some things to be sure you know:

I. You should be able to define the following concepts:
A. argument
B. proposition
C. concept
F. premise
G. conclusion
I. left brain/ratio/discursive reasoning
J. right brain/intellectus/intuition/contemplation
K. General revelation
L. Special revelation
M. fideism


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

A. Imagine a friend back home hears you are taking this class and asks you, "Just what is philosophy?" How would you respond? (No, not that way! I mean seriously!)

B. What is the law of non-contradiction, and why is it so important? Can it be proven? Discuss.

C. Compare and contrast the different ways human beings can know.

D. Explain what Tom Morris means, in his Philosophy for Dummies, when he speaks about a "triple skill set of philosophy."

E. Should Christians study philosophy? Why or why not?

F. What are the various positions one can take on the issue of the relation of faith and reason? Explain them in detail. Which one do you hold? Why?

PLEASE, CONTACT ME IF YOU ARE CONFUSED ABOUT ANYTHING!

Please refer to the syllabus for phone number and email, or use the EBC email (just be sure to spell my last name correctly!)

C.S. Lewis on God, Nonsense and Non-Contradiction

From The Problem of Pain, p. 16:

Omnipotence means ‘power to do all, or everything’. And we are told in Scripture that ‘with God all things are possible’. It is common enough, in argument with an unbeliever, to be told that God, if He existed and were good, would do this or that; and then, if we point out that the proposed action is impossible, to be met with the retort ‘But I thought God was supposed to be able to do anything’. This raises the whole question of impossibility.

In ordinary usage the word impossible generally implies a suppressed clause beginning with the word unless. Thus it is impossible for me to see the street from where I sit writing at this moment; that is, it is impossible to see the street unless I go up to the top floor where I shall be high enough to overlook the intervening building. If I had broken my leg I should say ‘But it is impossible to go up to the top floor’–meaning, however, that it is impossible unless some friends turn up who will carry me. Now let us advance to a different plane of impossibility, by saying, ‘It is, at any rate, impossible to see the street so long as I remain where I am and the intervening building remains where it is’. Someone might add ‘unless the nature of space, or of vision, were different from what it is’. I do not know what the best philosophers and scientists would say to this, but I should have to reply ‘I don’t know whether space and vision could possibly have been of such a nature as you suggest’. Now it is clear that the words could possibly here refer to some absolute kind of possibility or impossibility which is different from the relative impossibilities and impossibilities we have been considering. I cannot say whether seeing round corners is, in this new sense, possible or not, because I do not know whether it is self-contradictory or not. But I know very well that if it is self-contradictory it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no unless clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.

It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

‘All agents’ here includes God Himself. His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it’, you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them with the two other words ‘God can’. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

A Philosopher's Prayer

Lord, help us to argue in a biblical way, pleasing to you.
Help us to be bold, like Paul on the Areopagus.
Help us to not resist a good argument.
Help us to be humble and teachable.
Help us to love the truth so much that we gladly sacrifice our egos,
So that the question is always, “what is right?”
Not “who is right?”
Give us the mind of Christ, so that like Him,
We might glorify you.

More Quotes

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord, deliver me.

The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy... neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
- John W. Gardner

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. -- Martin Luther, Table-Talk

G.K. Chesterton Quotes

Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."------ G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

... Those dealing in the actual manufacture of mind are dealing in a very explosive material. The material is not merely the clay of which man is master, but the truths or semblances of truth which have a certain mastery over man. The material is explosive because it must be taken seriously. The men writing books really are throwing bombs. --G. K .Chesterton

Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today. But man is always influenced by thought of some kind, his own or somebody else's; that of somebody he trusts or that of somebody he never heard of, thought at first, second or third hand; thought from exploded legends or unverified rumours; but always something with the shadow of a system of values and a reason for preference. A man does test everything by something. The question here is whether he has ever tested the test. -- G. K. Chesterton, The Common Man

HUMOR: Monty Python and Philosophy

The Argument Clinic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

This is a classic! Definitely NOT what philosophy should be, but unfortunately what is can devolve into.

International Philosophy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrShK-NVMIU

The German Philosophers vs. the Greeks on the Soccer field! Can you handle the excitement?

Germany vs. Greece
"And here are their line-ups:
Germany:
1 LEIBNIZ,2 I.KANT,3 HEGEL,4 SCHOPENHAUER,5 SCHELLING,6 BECKENBAUER,7 JASPERS,8 SCHLEGEL,9 WITTGENSTEIN,10 NIETZSCHE,11 HEIDEGGER
Greece:
1 PLATO,2 EPIKTET,3 ARISTOTELE,4 SOPHOKLES55 EMPEDOKLES VON ACRAGA,6 PLOTIN,7 EPIKUR8 HERAKLIT,9 DERAKLIT,10 SOKRATES,11 ARKIMEDES"

Welcome to the Great Conversation! (+ Links)

Welcome to PH332 and the great conversation that is philosophy!

I look forward to introducing you to some of the topics and to the philosophers who have already taken their place at the table. But most of all, I am eager to hear what you have to say.

Here are some links to help you better understand this conversation.

EpistemeLinks
http://www.epistemelinks.com/index.aspx

includes over 19,000 categorized links to philosophy resources on the Internet and has several additional features. Online since early 1997, this site is free to use, and doesn't require user registration of any kind. Begin browsing the site by using the Philosophers or Topics links , or by using the link category or special feature links.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/

Erratic Impact
http://www.erraticimpact.com/

Erratic Impact's Philosophy Research Base is categorized by history, subject and author. Integrating text resources with the best online resources, this study guide attempts to aid both academic and general interest in all philosophical genres and their related fields. Dig In! Enjoy Life! And thank you for your support.

Garth Kemmerling's Philosophy Pages
http://www.philosophypages.com/index.htm

This site offers helpful information for students of the Western philosophical tradition. The elements you will find on this site include:

The Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names.
A survey of the History of Western Philosophy.
A Timeline for the intellectual figures discussed here.
Detailed discussion of several major Philosophers
Summary treatment of the elementary principles of Logic
A generic Study Guide for students of philosophy.
Links to other philosophy Sites on the Internet.
An opportunity to download the entire site for personal use.

Dale's Philosophy of Religion Links
http://home.stny.rr.com/tuggy/por.html