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?