Search Results for: Stephen Davis

The past few decades have seen an increase of interest by Christians in philosophy.  One manifestation of this has been an increase of Christians teaching philosophy in a secular setting.  The recent EPS “Christ-Shaped Philosophy Project” evidences this renewed engagement and shows that there is dispute about what it even means to ‘do philosophy’ as a Christian.  In part this is because there is a difference of perspective about the meaning of philosophy. For example, in what way is philosophy different than testimony (e.g., revealed religion), tradition, science, common sense, and intuition? Moreover, must a Christian who teaches and studies philosophy commit herself/himself to one of the current philosophical methodologies such as analytic or continental philosophy?

PROJECT PURPOSE: We seek to understand teaching, learning, and communicating as a ‘Christian Philosopher’ in a non-religious (sometimes anti-religious) educational context (e.g., High School, College, and University). This project asks questions related to how Christians understand philosophy, and how this affects teaching philosophy as a Christian in a secular academic setting (see suggestions below). This involves philosophy as the study of general revelation, combined with the Christian claims of the need for redemption and redemptive revelation.  As such it raises important questions about the basis for common ground between humans as thinkers, and the Christian claim that humans do not seek, do not understand, and do not do what is right.

LENGTH: 1500-2000 total words. You are welcome to work with the Project Editor on length issues.

DEADLINE: TBD with editor/coordinator (see below).

Each month, we plan to feature at least one new contribution in this space.

SUBMISSION PROCESS: If you are interested in any of the below suggested areas of contribution (or you wish to propose some other topic), please contact our project coordinator and editor Owen Anderson (info below). Owen is seeking to coordinate all potential contributors and their topics for this endeavor. When you pitch your possible contribution, please provide the following:

• Your name, institution and contact info.
• Title and description of your proposal.
• Specific reasons for how your contribution will help advance the purpose of this project.

Contributions

• Robert Koons, “Creatively Bridging the ‘Interest Gap’: Personal and Professional Explorations.”

• Marylin McCord-Adams, “Christian Philosophy and Philosophers: Socialization and the Need for Fresh Approaches.”

• Christopher Tollefsen, “A Faithful Christian Academic in a Secular Setting.”

• Michael Austin, “Character, Vocation, and the Christian Academic.”

• Robert P. George, “Friendships, Intellectual Humility, and ‘Reasonable People of Goodwill.'”

• Michael T. McFall, “Prayer and the Secular University.”

• Russell DiSilvestro, “Assigning Virtue in the Secular Academy: An Experimental Approach.”

• Surrendra Gangadean, “Christianity, Philosophy and Public Education: Reflections upon retirement for all those who would sit in the Chair of Philosophy.”

• Michael J. White, “To Sanctify One’s Work and to Think with the Church.”

• Stephen T. Davis, “How Christians Should Teach Philosophy at Secular Institutions.”

12 SUGGESTED AREAS TO PURSUE

1. Is ‘Christian philosophy’ distinct from ‘philosophy,’ and if so, how does that shape the practice of teaching it in non-religious contexts?
2. How does being a Christian influence teaching philosophy at a secular institution?
3. What should a ‘Christian philosopher’ seek to accomplish with the teaching-learning process in a non-religious context? Teach for the sake of understanding an area of knowledge? Bear witness to the ultimate truth in the triune God? Only ‘play according to the rules’ of that discipline and institution? Something else? What might prudence and wisdom look like with this endeavor?
4. How might different epistemologies (e.g., Reformed Epistemology) influence what a ‘Christian philosopher’ views as desiderata for teaching-learning outcomes in a non-religious context?
5. What basis is there for ‘common ground’ between Christian philosophy and secular institutions (or students, or colleagues)?
6. What challenges to a Christian understanding of the world arise from students or colleagues? How should these challenges be addressed?
7. How might debates about advocacy/neutrality models of the classroom shape the ‘doing’ of philosophy by Christians?
8. What do secular institutions ask Christian philosophers to ‘do’ with their faith (e.g., utilize it, isolate it, make it merely private, etc) and how does that shape the teaching-learning process?
9. Given the challenges of philosophical and religious pluralism, how should one teach Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion, etc. as a Christian?
10. What are some ‘best practices’ for teaching hot-button issues like: the nature of truth, the existence of the soul, different accounts of human nature, issues of sexuality and sexual ethics, ‘beginning of life’ and ‘end of life’ ethical issues, war, nuclear disarmament, etc
11. Are there specific teaching or communication lessons a Christian philosophers learns at a secular institution that are absent at a religious institution?
12. Is teaching Christian philosophy at a secular institution different from teaching other subjects at that institution (does philosophy have a unique role than perhaps math, grammar, geography, etc., do not)?

Project Developer & Overseer
Joseph E. Gorra, Consulting Editor, Philosophia Christi.

Copy Editor Assistant
Dave Strobolakos, Talbot School of Theology.

Please consider becoming a regular annual or monthly financial partner with the Evangelical Philosophical Society in order to expand its reach, support its members, and be a credible presence of Christ-shaped philosophical interests in the academy and into the wider culture!

WELCOME to a unique and ongoing project at the website of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, where we are featuring interactions with Paul Moser’s paper, “Christ-Shaped Philosophy: Wisdom and Spirit United.”

Abstract: Christian philosophy is a distinctive kind of philosophy owing to the special role it assigns to God in Christ. Much of philosophy focuses on concepts, possibilities, necessities, propositions, and arguments. This may be helpful as far as it goes, but it omits what is the distinctive focus of Christian philosophy: the redemptive power of God in Christ, available in human experience. Such power, of course, is not mere talk or theory. Even Christian philosophers tend to shy away from the role of divine power in their efforts toward Christian philosophy. The power in question goes beyond philosophical wisdom to the causally powerful Spirit of God, who intervenes with divine corrective reciprocity. It yields a distinctive religious epistemology and a special role for Christian spirituality in Christian philosophy. It acknowledges a goal of union with God in Christ that shapes how Christian philosophy is to be done, and the result should reorient such philosophy in various ways. No longer can Christian philosophers do philosophy without being, themselves, under corrective and redemptive inquiry by God in Christ. This paper takes its inspiration from Paul’s profound approach to philosophy in his letter to the Colossians. Oddly, this approach has been largely ignored even by Christian philosophers. We need to correct this neglect.

Read the full-text of Moser’s paper for FREE by accessing it here (readers might also be interested in the discussion on Moser’s “religious epistemology” in the Winter 2012 issue of Philosophia Christi).

PROJECT PURPOSE: For philosophers and theologians, we invite you to consider submitting a carefully-honed response to one aspect of Moser’s thesis and argument, whether by critiquing it, advancing it, applying and integrating it to various areas of philosophy, theology and spirituality, or even by articulating some practices conducive toward ‘doing’ Christ-shaped philosophy.

LENGTH: 1500-2000 total words. You are welcome to work with the Project Editor on length issues.

DEADLINE: TBD with editor/coordinator (see below).

Each month, we plan to feature at least one new contribution in this space

CONTRIBUTIONS

• Clifford Williams, “Emotions and Christ-Shaped Philosophy.”

• Graham Oppy, “Moser, Ambiguity, and Christ-Shaped Philosophy.”

• Paul K. Moser, “Reply to Oppy.”

• William Hasker, “Paul Moser’s Christian Philosophy.”

• Paul K. Moser, “Reply to Hasker.”

• Roberto Di Ceglie, “Paul Moser, Graham Oppy, and the Philosophical Dignity of Christian Faith.”

• Richard Davis, “Christian Philosophy: For Whose Sake?”

• William Hasker, “Two Wisdoms, Two “Philosophies”: A Rejoinder to Moser.”

• Graham Oppy, “Replies to Moser and Di Ceglie on Christ-Shaped Philosophy.”

• Paul K. Moser, “A Rejoinder to the Rejoinders of Graham Oppy and William Hasker.”

• Michael W. Austin, “Analytic Moral Theology as Christ-Shaped Philosophy.”

• Roberto Di Ceglie, “I Cannot Convince Oppy: My Rejoinder to His Reply.”

• Michael T. McFall, “Christian Philosophy and the Confessional Classroom.”

• Paul K. Moser, “Doing and Teaching Christian Philosophy: Reply to McFall.”

• Dave Bukenhofer, “Christ-Shaped Philosophy and Content.”

• Tedla Woldeyohannes, “Moser’s Christ-Centered Metaphilosophy.”

• Paul K. Moser, “Christian Philosophy Without Sociology: Reply to Tedla Woldeyohannes.”

• Tedla Woldeyohannes, “A Missed Opportunity: Reply to Moser.”

• Joseph N. Partain, “Christian Philosophy and Philosophy’s Perennial Problems.”

• Richard Davis, “What Counts as Christian Philosophy: A Reply to Tedla Woldeyohannes.”

• Paul K. Moser, “On Traditional Philosophy and Natural Theology: A Rejoinder.”

• Charles Taliaferro, “Is Paul Moser among the Swinburnian Philosophical Theologians?”

• Paul K. Moser, “Beyond Spectator Evidence to Pneumatic Evidence: Reply to Charles Taliaferro.”

• Angus Menuge, “Ramified Personalized Natural Theology: A Third Way?”

• Paul K. Moser, “On Ramified Natural Theology: Reply to Menuge.”

• Natasha Duquette, “Spiritual Songs and Biblical Wisdom.”

• David K. Naugle, “Traits of Christian Philosophers.”

• Tedla Woldeyohannes, “Must Christian Philosophy Be Directly About Christ? Reply to Davis”

• Angus Menuge, “The Golden Cord and God’s Economy: Reply to Moser.”

• Paul K. Moser, “Rejoinder to Angus Menuge on Ramified Personalized Natural Theology.”

• Aaron Preston, “Two Wisdoms? The Unity of Truth, the Spirit of the (Academic) Disciplines, and the Norms of Academic Philosophy.”

• William Hasker, “Two Wisdoms Once More: Reply to Aaron Preston.”

• Nathan Greeley, “Christ-Shaped Philosophy and Systematic Theology: Paul Moser’s Gift to Theologians.”

• Aaron Preston, “On the Purported Superiority of Gethsemane Epistemology.”

• Paul K. Moser, “Gethsemane Epistemology, Pneumatic Evidence, and Divine Agape?: Reply to Preston.”

• R. Daniel Dake, “Paul Moser and the Antecedent Belief Criticism.”

• Tedla Woldeyohannes, “Given the Evidence, Natural Theology is Here to Stay!”

• Paul K. Moser, “How Not to Defend Natural Theology: Reply to Woldeyohannes.”

• Tedla Woldeyohannes, “Natural Theology in Context: Rejoinder to Moser.”

• Harry Bunting, “Christ-Shaped Moral Philosophy and the Triviality of 20th Century ‘Christian Ethics'”

• Aaron Preston, “Learning to Converse by Trial and Failure: a Rejoinder to Moser.”

• Philip Stewart, “Is Christ-Shaped Philosophy Really Philosophy?”

• James H. Collin, “Ramified Natural Theology, the Moser Way?”

• Mark Mcleod-Harrison and Stephen Kenyon, “Love, Wisdom and (Christian) Philosophy.”

• John Daniel McDonald, “Philosophical Questions and the Unity of the Trinity: Re-engaging Christ-shaped Philosophy.”

• John Daniel McDonald, “‘Be Quick to Hear and Slow to Speak’: Exploring the Act of Listening as a Christ-Shaped Philosophical Virtue.”

How Can You Contribute? 15 Suggestions

1. Interact with the paper’s thesis on its own merit. Perhaps you might want to discuss an assumption, concept, claim, distinction, methodology, etc., in Paul’s paper.
2. Do Christ-Shaped Philosophy. Instead of just talking about it, perhaps you would like to model how Christ-Shaped philosophy can be done regarding some carefully-honed topic, whether one that Paul has addressed or something else.
3. Address how to do Christ-shaped philosophy, whether as a discussion focused on relevant prolegomena issues or concerning the practical processes or practices involved. Here, we welcome even just a proposal for the ‘how to.’
4. Explain the theological assumptions of Christ-shaped philosophy and show how it contributes to this way of ‘doing’ philosophy.
5. Contextualize Christ-shaped philosophy in view of other relevant works by Paul Moser. (Paul’s paper is a continuation of his work in earlier publications such as: his Faith and Philosophy paper, “On Jesus and Philosophy”; chapter 4, “Philosophy Revamped,” from his book The Elusive God; his “Introduction” to his edited book, Jesus and Philosophy. A goal here may include drawing an overall general  picture of his conception of ‘Christian philosophy’ from his relevant works).
6. Envision what it might mean to do Christ-shaped philosophy as and for the church. What are the ecclesial factors and significance for Christ-shaped philosophy? What might be the epistemic significance of theological tradition for informing Christ-shaped philosophy?
7. Develop how Christ-shaped philosophy might affect philosophy practices (e.g., teaching, dialogue/discourse, and writing/publishing in philosophy). If it does (re)shape practices, explain how it does to distinctively?
8. Compare the approach and benefits of Christ-shaped philosophy with Analytic Theology. Are they interrelated? Are they addressing similar topics yet asking different questions?
9. Convey what are the implications of Christ-shaped philosophy for philosophy as a professionalized and specialized discipline in the academy, whether of an analytic or continental variety. Does Christ-shaped philosophy defy that categorization?
10. If Christ-shaped philosophy is not ‘respected’ or ‘taken seriously’ in the academy, should it be attempted in that context?
11. Envision the vocation, moral-spiritual character development training and skills of a philosopher if Christ-shaped philosophy is true. Consider this especially in the context of the contemporary practice of analytic philosophy in academic environments. How might graduate work look different if Christ-shaped philosophy is a goal? How might the socialization process and factors of becoming a ‘philosopher’ look any different?
12. Consider the purpose and outcomes of Christ-shaped philosophy for ‘doing’ Christian apologetics and theology. How might apologetics and theology work differ in relationship to ‘Christian philosophy’ work if Christ-shaped philosophy is true and enacted?
13. Develop the value and development of Christ-shaped philosophy in conversation with ‘contemporary’ and ‘historical’ voices. Which voices might help advance or help assess Christ-shaped philosophy, whether these are theology, philosophy, or spirituality voices.
14. Consider whether Christ-shaped philosophy can be a ‘synthesis’ posture/framework for doing philosophy as a Christian, whether one is working from Reformed Epistemology, Evidentialism, Post-Foundationalism, Covenant Epistemology, etc.
15. Envision how the basic contours of Christ-shaped philosophy might be viewed as a model for Christians ‘doing scholarship,’ regardless of their discipline or area of specialization. How might it be address so-called ‘worldview integration’ issues?

Project Coordinator & Editor
Tedla G. Woldeyohannes
Department of Philosophy
Saint Louis University
Saint Louis, MO 63108

Project Developer & Overseer
Joseph E. Gorra, Consulting Editor, Philosophia Christi

Copy Editor Assistant
Dave Strobolakos