Search Results for: William Lane Craig

Introduction to a Special Issue of Philosophia Christi on Ramified Natural Theology

Posted on August 12, 2013 by -

Extended Discussions of Ramified Natural Theology

In light of the Philosophia Christi (Winter 2013) themed discussion on “Ramified,” we welcome ongoing web contributions directly related to the Philosophia Christi articles or as fresh additions to that discussion. For example, consider these worthwhile papers:
For more interactive discussions on “Ramified Natural Theology” and “Christ-Shaped Philosophy,” see the various papers at this associated web project.

A Renaissance of “Traditional Natural Theology”

What may be called “traditional natural theology” is widely understood as the project of establishing the existence of God and at least some of His attributes through the testimony of the senses and reason, without relying on the authority of divine revelation. Some believe traditional natural theology was dealt a mortal blow by David Hume, Immanuel Kant and other Enlightenment thinkers. To the contrary, it has undergone a startling renaissance, as evidenced by many fine volumes in recent years.

(One could easily cite a large number of  more specialized works devoted to updated versions of the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments as well as the arguments from reason, consciousness and abstract objects).

Beyond Natural Theology’s “Generic Theism”

However, even if successful, the arguments of traditional natural theology can hope at best to establish a “bare” or “generic” theism: they cannot tell us which of the competing theistic religions is most likely true. The received wisdom is that further illumination about the identity of God is only available through special revelation. This assumption is challenged by an approach that Richard Swinburne has dubbed “ramified natural theology” [Richard Swinburne, “Natural Theology, Its ‘Dwindling Probabilities’ and ‘Lack of Rapport,’” Faith and Philosophy 21(4): 533-546 (2004)]. The idea is to present public evidence which discriminates between competing theistic religions because they do not all explain that evidence, or explain it equally well. While Swinburne is the most famous contemporary proponent of this approach, it has many precedents, for example in the arguments of various church fathers and of Blaise Pascal that Christianity is the true theistic religion because of its uniquely strong support by well-attested miracles and fulfilled prophecy. And Alister McGrath’s recent work may also qualify, as he develops an approach to natural theology which is both Christocentric and anchored in specifically Trinitarian theology [Alister McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008). What is controversial in McGrath’s approach is his contention that nature must be interpreted in an appropriate way to disclose its secrets: will this depend on presuppositions that are not neutral between competing worldviews?]

The Promise of “Ramified Natural Theology”

The promise of ramified natural theology is considerable.   On the one hand, as developed by Swinburne, ramified natural theology is an extension of traditional natural theology [Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003) and Was Jesus God? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010)].  Thus Swinburne’s case for the truth of Christianity assumes the general background evidence for God’s existence (which he himself has developed in a powerful cumulative case argument), and supplements it with the evidence for the prior likelihood of the incarnation and the posterior unlikelihood of our having the evidence we do for the life, death and resurrection of Christ unless these events were the result of God’s plan of salvation [see Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, second edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)].  On the other hand, it is by no means obvious that a ramified approach must build on evidence from traditional natural theology.  At least in some cases, a ramified argument may be made independently of a prior case for theism.  For example, as Hugh Gauch has pointed out, in the case for the resurrection developed by Timothy and Lydia McGrew, only Bayes factors are used, dispensing with prior probabilities.  More generally, using a likelihood approach, it is possible to assess the relative merits of a range of competing worldviews without presupposing any of them [see Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. “Natural Theology’s Case for Jesus’s Resurrection:  Methodological and Statistical Considerations,” Philosophia Christi 13 (2011):  339–55; Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, “The Argument from Miracles:  A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (West Sussex:  Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 593–662].

To the extent that practitioners of ramified natural theology are sanguine about traditional natural theology, they can exploit the latter’s strengths by developing arguments that extend or supplement its results.  At the same time, to the extent that a ramified natural theological argument is developed independently of traditional natural theology, reservations about the latter do not justify a failure to seriously consider the former [In a recent symposium on Paul K. Moser’s religious epistemology, Moser expressed his skepticism toward the value of traditional natural theological arguments, while Kathryn Waidler, Charles Taliaferro and Harold Netland defended it, but ramified natural theology did not surface. See Philosophia Christi 14 (2) (2012), 263-311].   Ramified natural theology’s flexible relationship with traditional natural theology gives Christian apologists valuable latitude when seeking to address the diverse epistemic states of unbelievers.  For hard-nosed materialists, traditional natural theology may help provide a theistic foundation so that a case for the resurrection (or miracles in general) has more appeal.  But for many others, for whom theistic religions are among the live hypotheses, a ramified approach may be sufficient by itself to select the best worldview option.  There are many new questions and exciting opportunities in this growing area, and we are confident that the nine following essays will help to develop a sense of the potential for ramified natural theology to transform Christian philosophy and apologetics.

The Winter 2013 “Ramified Natural Theology” Issue of Philosophia Christi

The lead article by Richard Swinburne and the subsequent discussion in the next two articles concern Jesus’s resurrection.  Swinburne’s initial essay summarizes several of his book length studies and serves as a paradigm case of ramified natural theology.  Using a Bayesian formulation, Swinburne shows that there is one and only one individual—Jesus of Nazareth—who plausibly satisfies both the prior and the posterior requirements to be God incarnate, and that since the evidence for this is so strong, God would have to be a grand deceiver (or one who permits some lesser agent, such as the devil, to perpetrate grand deception) if some other past or future figure were the messiah, but this is incompatible with God’s perfect moral character.

This last claim of Swinburne’s is the target of the next paper, by Robert Cavin and Carlos Colombetti.  The authors claim that Swinburne’s argument does not satisfy the demand for total evidence, because it overlooks the evidence for intentional human deception by false prophets (and self-deception) on a massive scale.  Given their disagreements about which revelation is authentic, it is arguable that either Christians or non-Christians must have been deceived in some sense. Cavin and Colombetti conclude, contra Swinburne, that it is not improbable that the evidence for the Incarnation and Resurrection is mistaken or misleading.

In his response, Swinburne provides a close study of different kinds of deception, and argues that Cavin and Colombetti conflate God’s unjustifiable permission of deliberate deception with His allowing people to hold false beliefs or to be deceived in justifiable ways.  He claims that the examples provided by Cavin and Colombetti fall into the latter category, and that this is compatible with God’s moral perfection. This exchange is likely only the beginning of an important dialogue on the evidential impact of “negative theology” on the project of ramified natural theology.

While this project is vitally important to Christian philosophers and apologists, is it something theologians proper should take seriously?  Rodney Holder provides several reasons for an affirmative answer.  The first is premised on the fact of religious pluralism: the many competing religions all provide internal criteria for the correctness of their beliefs, but these do not give the outsider an independent means of deciding which revelation is most likely true.  Drawing on the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg, Brian Hebblethwaite and others, Holder argues that theologians need ramified natural theology to overcome this impasse.  They also need it to avoid circular presuppositionalism and to show that Christians have a faith founded on historical fact.  As Holder concludes, “the traditional division between natural theology and revealed theology breaks down as soon as we ask why we should believe in a putative revelation and how we can commend our own perceived revelation to others.”

Some may suspect that ramified natural theology employs an ad hoc procedure of argumentation, gerrymandered by religious apologists to show their faith in the best light.  To the contrary, Hugh Gauch argues that like natural science, ramified natural theology functions with the most basic presuppositions of empirical method required to gain factual information about the world.  Since these presuppositions are held in common between parties in disagreement, and since only public evidence and standard logic is permitted, ramified arguments are capable of objectively discriminating between worldviews.  Sound methodology is vital because, Gauch argues, “Any success and significance that ramified natural theology may have originates in, and depends on, its methodology being clear, impartial, settled, and effective.”  Gauch shows in particular that this approach is ideal for investigating the facticity of miracle claims.  Reinforcing Holder’s assessment, Gauch suggests that natural and revealed theology are not competitors but partners in a fruitful synergy.

One of the extraordinary differences between contemporary natural theology and the natural theology of previous centuries is the former’s integration of the rigorous formalisms of deductive logic and probability theory.  Timothy McGrew and John DePoe seek to show how these technical breakthroughs provide sometimes surprising insights into what does and does not count as a strong argument of natural theology.   On the cautionary side, they show that common intuitions about the probability of deductive arguments are often wrong.  Yet they also show that an important implication of Bayes’ theorem for ramified natural theology is that the combination of many individually weak pieces of evidence can yield a cumulative case argument of great certainty.  They further point out that there are many possible goals of natural theological arguments, and that the value of the argument will often depend on the epistemic state of its audience.

The remaining articles illustrate the wide range of potential application for a ramified approach to natural theology.

Lydia McGrew uses a Bayesian approach to show that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. Her argument nicely illustrates the fact that even if each piece of evidence raises the probability of a hypothesis by a modest amount, their combination can yield a powerful cumulative case argument.  She further argues that if we consider the remarkable fact that this Messiah is prophesied both to die and also to have a glorious future, the resurrection is much more probable.  This essay thus provides some further support for Swinburne’s conclusion that Jesus was God incarnate and was raised from the dead.

The moral argument for God is a staple of natural theology and many have undertaken to establish the existence of a good God from the apparent facts of moral obligation.  In their paper, David Baggett and Ronnie Campbell seek to extend this argument by showing how Christianity provides superior resources to account for what it means to be a good God, particularly if it has been shown that such a being must be essentially loving.  This is because the Trinity does real explanatory work in showing us what it means for God to be loving in His own nature.  The authors point out that not only does this approach favor Christianity over non-Christian theistic religions, it also provides a reason to prefer some denominations over others on account of their portrait of God’s character.  They dub this intra-Christian inquiry “doubly ramified natural theology.”   This matters not only to the Christian seeking the true church, but also has an impact on non-Christians, as they may reject the faith because some denominations offer a distorted picture of what God is like.

In a similar vein, Travis Dumsday argues that once we consider evidence such as visions and miracles which may favor Christianity over its rivals, it is an unavoidable possibility that some of this evidence will favor some denominations over others.  Dumsday argues that ramified natural theology is, in any case, already at work in interdenominational debate, since philosophical and historical arguments are used to defend or critique confessional positions e.g. on baptism, predestination and whether scripture can coherently be claimed as the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine.  Dumsday points out that these arguments are typically not decisive as, for example, evidence may be rejected as the result of demonic delusion, yet there are limits to how far a Christian can reasonably (and charitably) pursue this dismissive strategy.  In all this, he urges a posture of “cautious, critical open-mindedness.”

How a “Ramified Mode of Investigation” Benefits Various Philosophical Projects

We hope that this special issue of Philosophia Christi helps to clarify the nature and purpose of ramified natural theology.  We believe that ramified natural theology should be of interest to both Christian and non-Christian philosophers and theologians, and those in religious studies and biblical studies.  It is our hope that, soon, ramified natural theology will have a prominent place in any survey of philosophy of religion.  To that end, we edited this volume in order to stimulate further work, whether this involves a defense, critique or proposed improvements of extant arguments, or the creative application of a ramified approach to a neglected source of evidence.  For example, the following is an incomplete list of cases which would benefit from a distinctively ramified mode of investigation (in some cases, excellent, initial forays have been made into these areas):

  1. The problem of evil.
  2. Contemporary miracle claims.
  3. Aesthetics and the imagination as a guide to plausibility and truth.
  4. The psychology and neuroscience of religious experience.
  5. Near-death experiences.
  6. Metaethics and moral ontology.
  7. Revisiting the ontological, cosmological, moral and design arguments from a Christocentric perspective.
  8. The existence of the soul and the mind-body problem.
  9. The nature of information and language.
  10. The ontology of knowledge.
  11. The argument from reason.
  12. The nature of truth.
  13. The status of abstract objects.
  14. Existential angst.

The promise of the ramified approach suggests that the neglect of natural theology (and apologetics more generally) in many seminaries is founded on an unduly limited perception of the scope of natural theological arguments. So long as “natural theology” is taken to be synonymous with “bare natural theology,” natural theology has limited interest to the theologian because it does not tell us who God is or help us to decide which revelation is correct.  Yet this is precisely the target of ramified natural theology, and increased recognition of this fact should spur seminaries into a reconsideration of the role of natural theology in their curricula.

In closing, the beauty of a ramified approach to natural theology is that it calls Christians to take seriously scripture’s claim that Christ is present throughout reality, holding all things together (Colossians 1: 15-20).  If we really believe this, then we should expect that a Christocentric (rather than a merely theocentric) mode of inquiry will ultimately be the most rewarding.

Note: Thanks to Hugh Gauch, Justin McGeary and Daniel Murphy for their comments on two earlier drafts of this introduction. 

Philosophia Christi Winter 2012: Paul Moser’s Religious Epistemology

Posted on December 14, 2012 by - christ-shaped philosophy, paul k. moser, religious epistemology, thomas nagel

The very next issue of Philosophia Christi has now mailed! If you are not a current member/subscriber, you can become one today by purchasing here.

This packed issue leads with a resourceful discussion on Paul K. Moser’s religious epistemology, with contributions by Katharyn Waidler, Charles Taliaferro, Harold Netland and a final reply by Moser. This journal contribution not only extends interest and application of Moser’s epistemology but also compliments the EPS web project on “Christ-Shaped Philosophy”.

We also feature interesting work in philosophical theology, including how one might understand “friendship with Jesus” (Michael McFall), the scope of divine love (Jordan Wessling), and how one’s view of original sin relates to a broad free-will defense (W. Paul Franks).

Other significant article contributions address criticisms against Plantinga’s conditions for warrant (Mark Boone), the latest in cosmology and arguments for God’s existence (Andrew Loke) along with further challenges against “central state materialism” (Eric LaRock).

Readers will not want to miss J.P. Moreland’s critique of Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos along with the critique of Christian physicalism by Jonathan Loose. Michael Austin provides a helpful philosophical account of the virtue of humility in light of social science considerations, and Amos Yong critically assesses “relational apologetics” in a global context.

Finally, this issue features book reviews by William Lane Craig, James Stump, Paul Copan, James Bruce and Jason Cruze about books related to the latest on science and theology, cosmology, metaethics, and ethics of abortion. 

See all the articles included in this issue by clicking here.

A Tribute to Stuart C. Hackett (1925-2012)

Posted on October 25, 2012 by -

Last week, Stuart Cornelius Hackett (b. 1925)—a beloved philosophy professor, friend, and brother in Christ—departed this life to go where all true believers long to be. His mental brilliance, affected in his later years by Alzheimer’s, has been restored, and he is a now a clearer thinker than anytime during earthly days.

When I began to study at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985, my very first class during my first quarter—we didn’t have “semesters” then—was Hackett’s “Religious Epistemology” class. This remarkable course introduced me to rationalism, empiricism, testing truth claims, Kant and the synthetic a priori. My eyes were being opened to the larger world of philosophy, and just a few weeks into the semester I was more than sufficiently inspired to pursue an M.A. degree in philosophy of religion—in addition to my M.Div. degree. I would write my master’s thesis on “The Impossibility of an Infinite Temporal Regress of Events”—an argument Hackett resurrected from medieval Jewish and Muslim philosophy and utilized in his Resurrection of Theism. (Of course, William Craig, also a former student of Hackett’s, has been most closely identified with this theistic proof—now referred to as the kalam cosmological argument.)  Hackett’s early influence on my study of philosophy led me to dedicate my 2007 book Loving Wisdom to him.

As for the personal side of Dr. Hackett, he was quite colorful, both in personality and in his dress. He would wear brightly- and outrageously-colored, mismatched polyesters to class. One day he told us, “My wife wanted me to be sure to tell you that she does not approve of what I’m wearing today.”  In addition to sporting thick black-framed glasses, he would keep his hair quite short and his beard barely longer—perhaps ten days’ growth of stubble.  Once, when Hackett was wearing his well-worn dark overcoat in the middle of winter, someone at Trinity commented that it looked like someone had dragged him onto the seminary property off the streets of Chicago! One day in class, Stu Hackett told us, “I am often described as a weird person…I don’t know that I’m weird in an absolute sense—I mean I’m not a werewolf or a vampire or anything like that. I’m just highly individualistic.”

He was an enthusiastic teacher who would often greet us in Latin, Pax vobis cum—and then finish the reply himself—et te cum spiritu. He would cite Francis Thompson’s Hound of Heaven, telling us that we needed to move ahead with “unperturbed pace, deliberate speed, and majestic instancy.”  He was ever full of good humor—to the point that some students complained that they weren’t getting their money’s worth in class: “I’m gonna’ lay this stuff on you like one great big metaphysical egg!” Confessing that “I don’t have a Reformed bone in my body,” he summarized his credo: “I’m a whiskey Calvinist—of the five points, I can only swallow one fifth.” (His wife Joan once told me that for an entire afternoon, the Calvinist theologian Roger Nicole doggedly tried to persuade Hackett to become a Calvinist. But it was not predestined to be.)

To add to the atmosphere, Hackett would specialize in extraordinarily long, Germanic-style sentences, which called for focused vigilance so as not to lose the thread of what he was saying. To give you an idea, here is a sample sentence—yes, one sentence—taken from his book The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim:

If the very possibility of a contingent cosmos or world order is fully conceivable only through its dependence on a transcendent realm of essence and directive selection; and if the very notion of an actually infinite series of past temporal states of the temporal universe involves a self-contradiction, whether that universe is construed in mentalistic or materialistic terms; and if the pervasion of the universe by significant order or purposive adaptation is itself best explained through an operation of transcendent self-directive mind through its own operative causality—and these are the very claims that our previous arguments have defended as plausible—then the supposition that selfhood (self-awareness, conceptualization, and self-direction) could not be explained in terms of material constituents, which themselves require explanation on transcendent and essentially immaterial or spiritual grounds, seems questionable indeed (p. 110).

Dr. Hackett was a friend to so many, and we loved him, eccentricities and all. He was a dedicated follower of Christ, who would read through his Greek New Testament each year. When he retired, he began to brush up on his Hebrew so that he could resume reading the Old Testament in that language. He prayed before every class, and he would often offer words of spiritual encouragement to his students. Before he came to school each day, he prayed that if he said anything false, this teaching would simply fall to the ground and be forgotten. But if he taught what was true, he prayed that it would be forever emblazoned upon his students’ minds. (Of one of his theological opponents, Hackett said, “If that person had prayed that prayer, he would have died in utter obscurity!”)

All of us philosophy students would gather together at the Hackett home for our regular end-of-the-quarter bash—complete with Sarah Lee sweets accompanied by guitar music by our beloved professor, who would sing self-composed songs such as “Plato, dear Plato, how I love you!” Just before I graduated, someone took a picture of a group of us at his home. When I visited the Hacketts years later in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, I saw this photo underneath the glass top of his desk. His wife Joan told me that it was a reminder for him pray for us, which he did every day.

Hackett—or “Big Stu” as he enjoyed being called—taught and inspired not only me, but other philosophers and apologists, including William Lane Craig, Stephen Evans, Jay Wood, Mark McLeod-Harrison, Chad Meister, Mark Linville, Mark Mittelberg, Nicholas Merriwether, and many more. Others influenced by Hackett include the pastor and author John Piper as well as own pastor Dennis Reiter, with whom I worked in Storrs, Connecticut; they, along with many others, benefited from his philosophical teaching while at Wheaton College, where he taught alongside Arthur Holmes before he was at Trinity.

Preferring to call himself a “student of philosophy” rather than a “philosopher,” Dr. Hackett wrote several articles for professional journals such as the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. He also authored four books: Oriental Philosophy, The Resurrection of Theism, The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim, and The Rediscovery of the Highest Good. Hackett’s Oriental Philosophy (University of Wisconsin Press) is a superb introduction to the topic (Hackett had even gone to India to learn Sanskrit as part of this writing endeavor). The latter three books are rigorous, lucid texts covering epistemology, apologetics, philosophy of religion, and ethics. They are currently available through Wipf and Stock, and I would encourage you to explore these writings of a noteworthy philosopher from a previous generation. In addition, I should mention a Festschrift in Hackett’s honor was published in 1990, The Logic of Rational Theism (Edwin Mellen Press), coedited by William Lane Craig and Mark McLeod. Hackett offered a response to these essays, which can be found at The Interactive Hackett—a website that Tim Cole, a former classmate and Hackett student, has maintained and updated over the years.

Though Hackett kept a low profile and did not receive the attention he rightly deserved, his legacy lives on through many of the students he faithfully served and taught over the years—not to mention others who have benefited from his writings. His quiet, faithful ministry reminds me of the heroine in George Eliot’s Middlemarch, Dorothea:“But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.”

Give thanks with me for Stuart Hackett’s legacy. We have been enriched, made wiser, and better equipped to be witnesses to the good news of Jesus Christ through this faithful servant. “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord…for their deeds follow them.”

Summer 2012: EPS President’s Update

Posted on August 3, 2012 by -

Hello, fellow EPS members.

 

Last week I made my hotel reservations for our annual EPS meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Yes, I’m looking forward to being back at my old stomping grounds during my Ph.D. studies in philosophy—Marquette University. But much more than this, I am eager to gather with you all at what is the highlight of my academic year—the EPS annual meeting and EPS apologetics conference. Truly, we have much to look forward to!

 

EPS annual meeting (November 14-16—Wednesday through Friday): Hearty thanks to the philosophy department at Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana, for putting together a marvelous program this year. We’ll have familiar presenters—Bill Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, Angus Menuge, Greg Ganssle, Scott Smith—and newer ones like Jonathan Loose, Paul Gould, and Matt Flannagan. We’re pleased to have as our plenary speaker the noted philosopher of religion Charles Taliaferro, professor of St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota.  And please join us on Wednesday evening of our gathering for our EPS reception;  J.P. Moreland will offer a word of challenge and encouragement.

 

EPS apologetics conference (November 15-17—Thursday and Friday evenings and Saturday morning): This will take place at Spring Creek Church in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. In addition to our excellent seminar speakers, the plenary lineup is stellar indeed: Lee Strobel, Mark Mittelberg, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and Greg Koukl.

 

EPS session at AAR/SBL (November 18, Sunday—7:00 PM): This event will take place in Chicago at the Hilton Chicago (Continental Ballroom A). The panel will discuss the book, The Persistence of the Sacred in Modern Thought (University of Notre Dame Press, 2012). In this book, Chris L. Firestone, Nathan A. Jacobs, and thirteen other contributors examine the role of God in the thought of major European philosophers from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. This symposium addresses two questions that emerge out of this collection: What elements of the sacred persist in certain key figures of Modernity? And how might contemporary thinkers capitalize on these elements? The panelists include Chris L. Firestone (Trinity International University), Nathan Jacobs (John Brown University, Philip Clayton (Claremont School of Theology), and others. Stay tuned at the EPS website for a forthcoming author interview with Firestone and Jacobs.

 

Many other good things are happening within the EPS. This past week the EPS co-sponsored a conference in Pasadena, CA, entitled “Brave New World,” which deals with genetic engineering and human dignity. I was privileged to be the plenary speaker for our EPS Southeastern regional meeting this past spring—one of several regional EPS gatherings. Various EPS members continue to participate in apologetics conferences around the country, including a recent “On Guard” conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which was attended by 1,000 people, including atheists and agnostics, two of whom made commitments to Christ. 

 

We rejoice that the EPS is not only a philosophical society, but a missional organization that seeks to equip the church and make an impact not only in North America, but across the globe. In addition to what we are presently doing, we hope to launch new initiatives in international outreach. So please consider supporting the work of the EPS through your financial gifts and your prayers.

 

One final note: this November will mark the end of my six-year term as EPS President. It has been a privilege to serve and work together with you as fellow philosophers and as laborers together in God’s kingdom.

 

God’s blessings to you all!

 
Paul Copan
EPS President

Philosophia Christi Winter 2011: God and Abstract Objects

Posted on February 16, 2012 by - god and abstract objects, greg welty, hugh gauch, james anderson, keith yandell, paul gould, ramified natural theology, richard davis, william lane craig, Winter 2011

The Winter 2011 issue of Philosophia Christi features a unique and interesting discussion about “The Problem of God and Abstract Objects: A Prolegomenon.”

The following contributors and perspectives are represented in this issue:

Keith Yandell, “God and Propositions.”

ABSTRACT: If there are abstract objects, they necessarily exist. The majority view among contemporary philosophers of religion who are theists is that God also necessarily exists. Nonetheless, that God has necessary existence has not been shown to be true, or even (informally) consistent. It seems consistent—at least is doesn’t seem (informally) inconsistent—but neither does its denial. Arguments that necessary existence is a perfection, and God has all perfections, assume that Necessitarian Theism is true, and hence consistent. Thus they do not provide reason to believe that Necessitarian Theism is true. Non-necessitarian (“plain”) theism is on a philosophical par with Necessitarian Theism and can accommodate abstract objects all the while avoiding theological and philosophical refutation.

Richard Davis, “God and the Platonic Horde: A Defense of Limited Conceptualism.”

ABSTRACT: This paper attempts to argue for two main claims: First, it is plausible to think that Conceptualism holds with respect to propositions; in any event, it does a much better job than its closest competitors (Platonism and Nominalism) in accounting for the truthbearing nature of propositions. Secondly, it is wholly implausible (so I say) to take the added step and equate properties and relations with divine concepts. Here I offer additional reasons, beyond ‘divine bootstrapping’, for theists to resist this tempting reduction. Thus, a limited Conceptualism emerges as the most natural and defensible way for a theist to think about God’s relation to abstract objects.

William Lane Craig, “A Nominalist Perspective on God and Abstract Objects.”

ABSTRACT: A metaphysically robust, as opposed to lightweight, Platonism with respect to uncreatable abstract objects is theologically unacceptable because it fatally compromises creatio ex nihilo and divine aseity.  The principal argument for Platonism is the so-called Indispensability Argument based on the ontological commitments required by singular terms and existential quantifiers in true sentences.  Different varieties of Nominalism challenge each of the argument’s premises.  Fictionalism accepts the assumed criterion of ontological commitment but rejects the truth of the relevant sentences.  Neutralism accepts the truth of the relevant sentences but denies the assumed criterion of ontological commitment.  Both of these perspectives, but especially the last, are plausible routes available for the Christian theist.

Guest Editor Paul Gould also offers a handy, substantive, and engaging introduction to the above contributions in light of the overall discussion in the relevant literature.

ABSTRACT: How does God relate to abstract objects, if there be any? Any adequate solution to this question quickly leads to deep waters philosophical and theological. In this essay, I attempt to bring clarity to the debate related to the problem of God and abstract objects by first explicating as precisely as possible the problem and then by imposing some order into the debate by classifying various contemporary answers to the problem.

In addition to the above, see James Anderson’s and Greg Welty’s complimentary article, “The Lord of Noncontradiction: An Argument for God from Logic”

ABSTRACT: In this paper we offer a new argument for the existence of God. We content that the laws of logic are metaphysically dependent on the existence of god, understood as a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being; thus anyone who grants that there are laws of logic should also accept that there is a God. We argue that if our most natural intuitions about them are correct, and if they are to play the role in our intellectual activities that we take them to play, then the laws of logic are best construed as necessarily existent thoughts – more specifically, as divine thoughts about divine thoughts. We conclude by highlighting some implications for both theistic arguments and antitheistic arguments.

Unrelated to the above theme, Hugh Gauch’s article is must-reading, if for no other reason than how it relates to a new EPS Call for Papers on “Ramified Natural Theology.”

“Natural Theology’s Case for Jesus’s Resurrection: Methodological and Statistical Considerations”

ABSTRACT: An important 2003 book by Richard Swinburne and 2009 chapter by Timothy and Lydia McGrew develop the case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a project in ramified natural theology featuring public evidence. This paper imports a model for full disclosure of arguments from natural science to specific natural theology’s methodological and statistical requirements. Four matters need further clarification in this project’s ongoing development: the strength of the evidence, hypotheses being tested, dependence on generic natural theology, and range of evidence considered relative to apostolic precedents. The related historiographical method of Michael Licona is also discussed.

You really don’t want miss this Winter 2011 issue, especially if you are an avid reader in metaphysics and philosophical theology!

If you are not a current subscriber to Philosophia Christi or a current member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (annual subscription included), please consider renewing or joining for the first time.

Recommended EPS-ETS Panel Discussion (WEDNESDAY): Theistic Foundations for Morality

Posted on November 9, 2011 by - 2011 EPS conference, annual meeting, dave baggett, good god (book), jerry walls, mark foreman, paul copan, william lane craig

Book Symposium: Theistic Foundations for Morality 
by David Baggett and Jerry Walls

3:00-6:10 pm
Parc 55 – Market Street
Room B3

Moderator:
Mark Foreman
(Liberty University)

Panelists:
David Baggett
(Liberty University)

Jerry Walls
(Houston Baptist University)

Paul Copan
(Palm Beach Atlantic University)

William Lane Craig
(Talbot School of Theology)

Read an EPS interview with Dave Baggett and Jerry Walls about their book by going here.

Recommended EPS-ETS Panel Discussion (WEDNESDAY): Providence

Posted on November 9, 2011 by - 2011 EPS conference, annual meeting, dennis jowers, determinism, libertarian freedom, molinism, paul kjoss helseth, providence, ron highfield, william lane craig

Four Views on Divine Providence

TIME & LOCATION
8:30-11:40 am
Marriott – Foothill E

Moderator:
Dennis W. Jowers
(Faith Evangelical College and Seminary)

8:30-9:10 am
Paul Kjoss Helseth
(Northwestern College, MN)
God Causes All Things: A Brief Response

9:20-10:00 am
William Lane Craig
(Talbot School of Theology)
A Molinist Account of Providence: A Second Look

10:10-10:50 am
Ron Highfield
(Pepperdine University)
God Controls by Liberating

God & Abstract Objects: Next Issue of Philosophia Christi

Posted on October 13, 2011 by - 13:2, conceptualism, god and abstract objects, keith yandell, nominalism, paul gould, philosophia christi, platonic realism, richard davis, william lane craig, Winter 2011

The Winter 2011 issue of Philosophia Christi will offer an interesting discussion about “The Problem of God and Abstract Objects: A Prolegomenon.”

The following contributors and perspectives are represented in this issue:

Keith Yandell, “God and Propositions.”

ABSTRACT: If there are abstract objects, they necessarily exist. The majority view among contemporary philosophers of religion who are theists is that God also necessarily exists. Nonetheless, that God has necessary existence has not been shown to be true, or even (informally) consistent. It seems consistent—at least is doesn’t seem (informally) inconsistent—but neither does its denial. Arguments that necessary existence is a perfection, and God has all perfections, assume that Necessitarian Theism is true, and hence consistent. Thus they do not provide reason to believe that Necessitarian Theism is true. Non-necessitarian (“plain”) theism is on a philosophical par with Necessitarian Theism and can accommodate abstract objects all the while avoiding theological and philosophical refutation.

Richard Davis, “God and the Platonic Horde: A Defense of Limited Conceptualism.”

ABSTRACT: This paper attempts to argue for two main claims: First, it is plausible to think that Conceptualism holds with respect to propositions; in any event, it does a much better job than its closest competitors (Platonism and Nominalism) in accounting for the truthbearing nature of propositions. Secondly, it is wholly implausible (so I say) to take the added step and equate properties and relations with divine concepts. Here I offer additional reasons, beyond ‘divine bootstrapping’, for theists to resist this tempting reduction. Thus, a limited Conceptualism emerges as the most natural and defensible way for a theist to think about God’s relation to abstract objects.

William Lane Craig, “A Nominalist Perspective on God and Abstract Objects.”

ABSTRACT: A metaphysically robust, as opposed to lightweight, Platonism with respect to uncreatable abstract objects is theologically unacceptable because it fatally compromises creatio ex nihilo and divine aseity.  The principal argument for Platonism is the so-called Indispensability Argument based on the ontological commitments required by singular terms and existential quantifiers in true sentences.  Different varieties of Nominalism challenge each of the argument’s premises.  Fictionalism accepts the assumed criterion of ontological commitment but rejects the truth of the relevant sentences.  Neutralism accepts the truth of the relevant sentences but denies the assumed criterion of ontological commitment.  Both of these perspectives, but especially the last, are plausible routes available for the Christian theist.

Guest Editor Paul Gould also offers a handy, substantive, and engaging introduction to the above contributions in light of the overall discussion in the relevant literature.

ABSTRACT: How does God relate to abstract objects, if there be any? Any adequate solution to this question quickly leads to deep waters philosophical and theological. In this essay, I attempt to bring clarity to the debate related to the problem of God and abstract objects by first explicating as precisely as possible the problem and then by imposing some order into the debate by classifying various contemporary answers to the problem.

You don’t want miss this Winter 2011 issue, especially if you are an avid reader in metaphysics and philosophical theology!

If you are not a current subscriber to Philosophia Christi or a current member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (annual subscription included), please consider renewing or joining for the first time.

Arthur F. Holmes, 1924-2011

Posted on October 10, 2011 by - alvin plantinga, arthur f. holmes, paul copan

News broke over the weekend that the noted Christian philosopher, Dr. Arthur F. Holmes, died on Saturday, October 9. He was 87. Holmes “inspired generations of Wheaton College students and the broader Christian community through his thoughtful scholarship,” observed a Wheaton College press release.

On remembering Holmes’ life and legacy, Alvin Plantinga, the emeritus John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, said at the Christianity Today blog: “Arthur Holmes was a great Christian and a fine philosopher. We Christians who value the life of the mind must thank and praise the Lord for Art and his life, and we must do our best to see that his tradition is carried on and developed.”

Below is the following statement from Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University

This past Sunday evening, I read the sad news of the death of the well-loved Christian philosophy professor Arthur Holmes; he had taught at Wheaton College for over four decades.  One of the two influential philosophy professors I had at Trinity Seminary, Stuart Hackett, had been a good friend and colleague of Prof. Holmes for many years at Wheaton College.  In fact, it was Prof. Holmes who helped bring Prof. Hackett out of obscurity—from a small Southern college to a highly-esteemed evangelical college, giving him a far wider influence in the Christian philosophical community.  The well-established reputation Prof. Hackett earned at Wheaton would pave the way for his coming to Trinity Seminary.  So, indirectly, I am a beneficiary of Prof. Holmes’ initiative and foresight.

I myself had the opportunity to meet and interact with Prof. Holmes personally at the annual Wheaton Philosophy conferences and as I bumped into him here and there at other philosophical gatherings.  Though I found him to be modest and unassuming, he influenced many student lives and helped contribute to the rising tide of Christian philosophers shaping this generation, including Stephen Evans and William Lane Craig. I myself have been influenced through Prof. Holmes’ writings.  When I took my first philosophy class at Trinity Seminary in the fall of 1985, “Religious Epistemology” with Prof. Hackett, we students read and dissected Prof. Holmes’ book All Truth Is God’s Truth—to our great benefit.   And during my final year at Trinity Seminary, I took a class with Dr. Carl F.H. Henry, and another of Prof.  Holmes’ books was our text—Contours of a World View. These textbooks inspired me to hunt down and read Prof. Holmes’ other works: Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions; Fact, Value, and God; The Idea of a Christian College; Building the Christian Academy (edited); and War and Christian Ethics (edited).  All of his books are now a valuable part of my library.  They are lucidly written and insightful; indeed, they are solid resources for Christians in the liberal arts and for any believer who wants to think Christianly. 

Though Arthur Holmes has died, he still speaks through the lives of the Christian students he has influenced and the books he has written.  I commend his writings to present generation of Christian philosophy students and to all interested in more fully understanding what it means for Christ to be Lord over every facet of life.

Paul Copan
EPS President

Christianity Today’s blog reported that “Wheaton’s archives has collected some of Holmes’ chapel addresses and his papers are housed in the college’s special collections.”

Do you have any personal memories of Holmes? Any favorite Holmes-isms? How was Holmes a model for your scholarship?