**Roster
**Questions about essay....
**Due tonight:
------> Readings from Part Nine, "God-Language":
------>------>Thomas Aquinas, The Doctrine of Analogy, pp 391ff;
------>------>Flew and Mitchell, The Falsification Debate, pp 394ff;
------>------>Paul Tillich, Religious Language as Symbolic, pp 398ff;
------>------>Rosemary Reuther, Sexism and God-Talk, pp 404ff.
------>Writing:
------>------>"Reuther recognizes that God, as spirit, is neither
male nor female, which are physical realities. She speaks of the
tradition of apophatic theology [see Maimonides], which emphasizes the
unlikeness between God and creatures, and argues for inclusive language
that is inherently metaphorical. Review her points related to these
issues and evaluate. [Question taken from text]"
**Information and pictures for our authors is here.
** For next class, 4/2/12: The Issue of Miracles, Unit 10--
------>Readings:
------>------>Stephen Davis, "Is It Possible to Know That Jesus Was Raised from the Dead?" pp 433ff.
------>------>David Hume, "The Evidence for Miracles Is Weak," pp 441ff.
------>Write:
------>------>Why does Davis say that whether it is rational to believe the Resurrection depends on your prior worldview? Does YOUR worldview allow for the possibility that this event actually occurred? [Question is from p 440 of the text.]
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Class #8, 3/19/12
**Roster, etc.
**Questions about essay assignment....
**For tonight's discussion:
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
Writing due:
------>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?
**Some info about tonight's authors.
**For next week's class--3/26--
------> Readings from Part Nine, "God-Language":
------>------>Thomas Aquinas, The Doctrine of Analogy, pp 391ff;
------>------>Flew and Mitchell, The Falsification Debate, pp 394ff;
------>------>Paul Tillich, Religious Language as Symbolic, pp 398ff;
------>------>Rosemary Reuther, Sexism and God-Talk, pp 404ff.
------>Writing:
------>------>"Reuther recognizes that God, as spirit, is neither male nor female, which are physical realities. She speaks of the tradition of apophatic theology [see Maimonides], which emphasizes the unlikeness between God and creatures, and argues for inclusive language that is inherently metaphorical. Review her points related to these issues and evaluate. [Question taken from text]"
**Questions about essay assignment....
**For tonight's discussion:
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
Writing due:
------>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?
**Some info about tonight's authors.
**For next week's class--3/26--
------> Readings from Part Nine, "God-Language":
------>------>Thomas Aquinas, The Doctrine of Analogy, pp 391ff;
------>------>Flew and Mitchell, The Falsification Debate, pp 394ff;
------>------>Paul Tillich, Religious Language as Symbolic, pp 398ff;
------>------>Rosemary Reuther, Sexism and God-Talk, pp 404ff.
------>Writing:
------>------>"Reuther recognizes that God, as spirit, is neither male nor female, which are physical realities. She speaks of the tradition of apophatic theology [see Maimonides], which emphasizes the unlikeness between God and creatures, and argues for inclusive language that is inherently metaphorical. Review her points related to these issues and evaluate. [Question taken from text]"
Monday, March 5, 2012
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?
**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?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
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"?
**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"?
Monday, February 20, 2012
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.
**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.
Monday, February 13, 2012
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?
**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?
Sunday, February 5, 2012
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?
**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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)