Class #7, 3/5/2012

**Roster, etc.

**Handout:  longer essay assignment.  Due:  April 16.

**Due this week:  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"?

**Some visuals about Augustine and David Hume.

**For next class, March 19th:  Divine Action--
------>Read carefully from Part 8:
------>------>Paul Helm, Providence:  Risky or Risk-Free?, pp 348ff
------>------>J.R. Lucas, The Vulnerability of God, pp 369ff
------>------>Cobb and Griffin, God is Creative-Responsive Love, pp 377ff
------>Something to write:  Can God be personal and involved with the world, and still be the omnipotent, all-knowing God?  Isn't this a contradiction? 

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?

Class #2, 1/30/12

**Roster and misc. issues--any problems obtaining text?

**Discussion points for the Euthyphro:

• Any difficulties reading the text--what don't you get?
• Does the discussion with Euthyphro live up to Socrates' motto:  "I tell you that . . . examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living."
• What was this about?  Did you find that this discussion arrived at satisfactory answers?
• What proposed definitions of "piety" or "holiness" do Socrates and Euthyphro consider?
• Why can't Socrates and Euthyphro come to a satisfactory definition of holiness?
• Does Socrates believe it is possible to define holiness?
• Why does Socrates think that holiness must be "the same in every sphere of activity"?
• Why does Socrates consider "the most ingenious feature" of his art to be his ability to make the products of Euthyphro's mind not "stay put"?
• Since his conversation with Euthyphro moves in a circle, ending where it began, does Socrates intend it to teach us something other than a definition of holiness?
• Is Euthyphro justified in prosecuting his father for the worker's death?
• Do you agree with Socrates that there is only one standard by which all things are holy and unholy?

**A little more to help us follow the argument:




**What does this discussion mean for the hope of success in defining "holiness," "religion," or other terms during this semester?
          --Maybe it's not as bleak as it looks....

**For next week, 2/6/12:  We'll turn to an actual account of "religious experience" and some ways to interpret what's going on with it--in Part Two of the text, read the following articles:
------>Pp 40ff:  St. Theresa of Jesus, [her description of a series of experiences];
------>Pp 43ff:  Philosopher William James, "Religious Experience as Feelings forming the Root of Religion;"
------>Pp 68ff:  Philosopher Michael Martin, "Critique of Religious Experience."

**Write a page:  There are two questions I'd like your feedback on--
------>What do you make of Saint Theresa's account?
------>Do you side with either James or Martin, or would you explain this in some other manner?  Briefly explain.

Class #1, 1/23/12--WELCOME!

This is the course blog for Philosophy of Religion, PHIL 3323, for Spring Semester, 2012.

You'll find here the agendas for each class, important information about scheduling in case of bad weather or other emergencies, and interesting news from the world of religion.

Tonight's labors:

**Roster, introduction, info sheets.

**Here is the text information:  Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach and Bassinger, eds., Philosophy of Religion:  Selected Readings, 2010, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN #978-0-19-539359-0.

**Syllabus:  https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2bhCDyTewNUYjBmMjRjYTYtOGJiNC00NjM3LTk4M2YtMzJlNTI1NDI2NTIz

**Calendar:  https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2bhCDyTewNUNTg2YTlhYzAtNDY0OS00MzQ3LWE5ODEtMTcwNTg1ZjAyNmE1

**Defining basic terms:
          1. What is Philosophy?
          2. What is Religion?
          3. Relationships and issues in this field.

**Since we'll be reading the dialogue "Euthyphro" for next week, a little background on Socrates might be helpful:




**Just for fun, here's a teaser to lead into your reading of "Euthyphro."

**Complete student info page.

**For next class, 1/30:
Read the handouts:
------>Fletcher, "Slow Reading"
------>Plato, "Euthyphro"--read this with a pencil and highlighter!
In writing, complete and be ready to hand in the questions over "Slow Reading".