Class #6, 2/27/12

**Roster, etc.

**Due tonight:
------>Read--in this order:
------>------>Thomas Aquinas--The Classical Cosmological Argument, pp 184ff
------>------>Saint Anselm--The Classical Ontological Argument, pp 169ff
------>------>Gaunilo--Critique of the Cosmological Argument, pp 171ff
------>------>Robert M. Adams--Moral Arguments for God's Existence, pp 231ff
------>Write:  OK, Which argument--or none--works for you?  Explain.  Remember that there is a possibility that even a segment of the believing community--like Pascal--doesn't buy the premise that one can rationally demonstrate God's existence.

**Tonight's discussion:
------>Who are these people?
------>------>Aquinas was a moderate rationalist:  how does this affect his confidence that we can argue with some assurance that God does exist?  What is his evidence?
------>------>Anselm's argument is very different from that of Aquinas--what is his point?
------>------>Some people claim that Anselm's argument is more like a word game or logic puzzle.  Do you think there is any validity to this, or does Anselm's argument convince you?
------>------>The "moral argument" suggests that the universal assumption of some standard of judgment (in moral terms) suggests a moral mind whose existence supports that assumption.  Are you convinced by this?
------>------>What, if anything, is the value of making "arguments" or building "a case" for the existence of God?  Is it helpful?

**If time:  Listen to the opening statements of two scholars representing opposite sides of the Intelligent Design argument.  Here's the link to part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxK_Xs10Ung&feature=BFa&list=PLC34CF609D7F22AD6&lf=plpp_video

**For next week, 3/5/12:  The Problem of Evil
------>Read carefully:
------>------>Augustine's definition of the problem [HANDOUT]
------>------>David Hume, "Evil makes a Strong Case...," pp 276ff.
------>Write:  What sort of challenge exactly is evil to the human sense that there is a "higher power"?

Class #5, 2/20/12

**Roster, etc.

**Due tonight:
------>Reading:
------>------>The Introduction to Unit Four, pp 123ff
------>------>Moses Maimonides (Rambam), "Negative Theology," pp 133ff
------>------>Thomas Aquinas, "God is Omnipotent" pp 138ff
------>------>George Mavrodes, "Some puzzles concerning omnipotence,"  pp 141ff
------>------>Boethius, "God is Timeless," pp 150ff
------>------>Nicholas Wolterstorff, "God is Everlasting," pp 153ff

------>Writing:  Which approach to discussion about God do you favor--the "nothing can be said" approach or the "something must be said" approach?  Why?

**Discussion points:
------>Who are these people?
------>Can we orient and compare their different positions?
------>------>[Hint:  try a triangle]
------>Can we feel assured that we know anything about God?
------>In this area of life, is reason trustworthy or must we always operate on "faith alone"--or "Scripture alone"?
------>If God is God, what must God be?

**For next week:  Arguments about God's Existence.
------>Read--in this order: 
------>------>Thomas Aquinas--The Classical Cosmological Argument, pp 184ff
------>------>Saint Anselm--The Classical Ontological Argument, pp 169ff
------>------>Gaunilo--Critique of the Cosmological Argument, pp 171ff
------>------>Robert M. Adams--Moral Arguments for God's Existence, pp 231ff

------>Write:  OK, Which argument--or none--works for you?  Explain.  Remember that there is a possibility that even a segment of the believing community--like Pascal--doesn't buy the premise that one can rationally demonstrate God's existence.

Class #4, 2/13/12

**Roster, etc.

**Due tonight:
------>Readings:
------>------>Thomas Aquinas, "The Harmony of Reason and Revelation," pp 92ff.
------>------>Pascal, "The Wager," pp 96ff.
------>------>Wm. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief," pp 99ff.
------>------>Kierkegaard, "Truth is Subjectivity," pp 111ff.
------>Writing:  William Clifford says we should only believe anything when we have "sufficient evidence ... based on fair inquiry."  What does he mean by this?  Is it a fair standard when applied to religious belief?

**A few discussion points:
     **Who are these people?
     **What differences exist between them on the issues of faith and reason?
     **If you were to put them on last week's objective/subjective spectrum, where would they fall in relation to each other?
     **With whom do you agree the most?  Why?

**For next class--2/20/12: 
------>Reading:
------>------>The Introduction to Unit Four, pp 123ff
------>------>Moses Maimonides (Rambam), "Negative Theology," pp 133ff
------>------>Thomas Aquinas, "God is Omnipotent" pp 138ff
------>------>George Mavrodes, "Some puzzles concerning omnipotence,"  pp 141ff
------>------>Boethius, "God is Timeless," pp 150ff
------>------>Nicholas Wolterstorff, "God is Everlasting," pp 153ff

------>Writing:  Which approach to discussion about God do you favor--the "nothing can be said" approach or the "something must be said" approach?  Why?

Class #3, 2/6/12--Back to Work!

**Health report: Had the flu, got over it with a lingering cough that turned out to be bronchitis. I'll be there Monday night.

**Due tonight--two weeks' work:

------>You should have read, hightlighted and reviewed the dialogue "Euthyphro" that was assigned the week before last. This is a basic discussion for the issue of the relationship between philosophy and religion.

------>We'll try to get a basic discussion underway about religious experience, based on the readings from St Theresa, William James and Michael Martin.

------>Written work due:
------>------>Your page on "Slow Reading"
------>------>Your reflection on the issue with religious experience.

**"Euthyphro" discussion. (See talking points in previous agenda.)

**Discussion on religious experience--

------>What exactly did St Theresa experience?


------>James' criteria for religious phenomena.



------>Martin's criticism--valid or not? Does he leave any room for a genuine level of religious experience?

**For next week:  Faith and Reason--some classic texts on the relationship between the two. 

------>Readings:
------>------>Thomas Aquinas, "The Harmony of Reason and Revelation," pp 92ff.
------>------>Pascal, "The Wager," pp 96ff.
------>------>Wm. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief," pp 99ff.
------>------>Kierkegaard, "Truth is Subjectivity," pp 111ff.

------>Write a page:  William Clifford says we should only believe anything when we have "sufficient evidence ... based on fair inquiry."  What does he mean by this?  Is it a fair standard when applied to religious belief?