Recent Responses
Why in the western hemisphere are most text books only engaged with western thought, and very few with a mixture of both western and eastern? I am taking a class now that only focus is to prescribe to the western view, this is all the course reading consist of. For me this causes a great gulf, because of the dominance of European thought. Not even Confucious is mentioned on any of the reading, this really is paradoxical.....
Charles Taliaferro
June 22, 2010
(changed June 22, 2010)
Permalink
Good question. This is indeed unfortunate. I believe most (if not all) philosophers in the English-speaking world today will have at least one other language, though I wager that for the majority of us that other language is not Asian (in my case my other languages are Greek and French).... Read more
I have recently stumbled upon a short book written by the Catholic theologian named Peter Kreeft. He deductively argued for Jesus’ divinity through an approach he summarized as “Aut deus aut homo malus.” (Either God or a Bad Man.) Basically, his argument works only on the assumption made by most historians. Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed. So, assuming this is true he says Jesus must’ve been one of three things. One possibility is that he was a liar. He said he was divine even though he knew it was not true. Another possibility is that he was insane. He believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. The final possibility is that he was telling the truth and he was correct. He was divine. He goes through and points out that Jesus shows no symptoms of insanity. He had no motive for lying. In fact, he was executed because of his claims. That gives him a motive to deny his divinity, which he apparently was given a chance to do by according to the Jewish and Roman sources on the issue. (Only the Ebionites, who wrote the bible, paint his trial as unfair. The Jews and Romans say that they gathered evidence for forty days. The Pharisees say he wasn’t crucified but rather hung.) Anyway, since he has no motive to lie and there’s no evidence that he was lying there’s no logical reason to make this conclusion. Since he shows no symptoms of insanity there’s no logical reason to think he was insane. He must be divine, according to Kreeft. He argues with a sort of ‘Ocham’s Razor,’ type approach, you see? Working on his assumption that the historical information claiming that he Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed, showed no signs of insanity, and had no motive for lying is there any counter for his argument?
Eric Silverman
June 23, 2010
(changed June 23, 2010)
Permalink
Thanks to Charles Taliaferro for resurrecting this interesting question (which I was too swamped to answer when it came around the first time). It is important to remember that like many philosophical arguments it has a specific audience in mind. Let's call the intended audience 'the agnostic ge... Read more
I'm religious, but I'm also gay. My church teaches that homosexual relationships are immoral. They say that this is what God has told us and they back it up with scriptures and revelation from God given to my current church leaders. I have a hard time accepting that homosexuality is immoral. I don't see why people should be denied consenting, intimate, long-term relationships. So, here's the question that I need to find a solution to: Should I deny believing what I think is right to comply with what my church leaders say God thinks is moral?
Charles Taliaferro
June 21, 2010
(changed June 21, 2010)
Permalink
Following up on Heck: The church I attend (Episcopal) is quite welcoming to gays. The associate pastor (and for many years my confessor) is a Lesbian priest. There are substantial support groups for homosexual Christians in different denominations. While Richard Swinburne is a Christian... Read more
I have recently stumbled upon a short book written by the Catholic theologian named Peter Kreeft. He deductively argued for Jesus’ divinity through an approach he summarized as “Aut deus aut homo malus.” (Either God or a Bad Man.) Basically, his argument works only on the assumption made by most historians. Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed. So, assuming this is true he says Jesus must’ve been one of three things. One possibility is that he was a liar. He said he was divine even though he knew it was not true. Another possibility is that he was insane. He believed he was divine even though he wasn’t. The final possibility is that he was telling the truth and he was correct. He was divine. He goes through and points out that Jesus shows no symptoms of insanity. He had no motive for lying. In fact, he was executed because of his claims. That gives him a motive to deny his divinity, which he apparently was given a chance to do by according to the Jewish and Roman sources on the issue. (Only the Ebionites, who wrote the bible, paint his trial as unfair. The Jews and Romans say that they gathered evidence for forty days. The Pharisees say he wasn’t crucified but rather hung.) Anyway, since he has no motive to lie and there’s no evidence that he was lying there’s no logical reason to make this conclusion. Since he shows no symptoms of insanity there’s no logical reason to think he was insane. He must be divine, according to Kreeft. He argues with a sort of ‘Ocham’s Razor,’ type approach, you see? Working on his assumption that the historical information claiming that he Jesus was a teacher, he claimed divinity, and was executed, showed no signs of insanity, and had no motive for lying is there any counter for his argument?
Eric Silverman
June 23, 2010
(changed June 23, 2010)
Permalink
Thanks to Charles Taliaferro for resurrecting this interesting question (which I was too swamped to answer when it came around the first time). It is important to remember that like many philosophical arguments it has a specific audience in mind. Let's call the intended audience 'the agnostic ge... Read more
If there is no proof that god exists, is there any evidence that he does and what form would this evidence take to be worthy of philosophical examination?
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
And I might commend my own Philosophy of Religion: A Beginner's Guide (Oneworld Press, Oxford) and Dialogues about God (Rowman and Littlefied) for a review of many of the arguments that seek to address the existence of God from the standpoint of evidence.
Log in to post... Read more
I'm a first year student of philosophy at UCLA, and I am interested primarily in philosophy of religion. I've just taken an introductory logic course which covered symbolization, sentential logic, and quantification. There are numerous other logic courses offered through the department, including metalogic, modal logic, etc, and I was wondering if AskPhilosophers could recommend a logic course to take? More specifically, I want to take a logic course that is related or will aid me in my studies in philosophy of religion. Maybe modal logic, since it deals with necessity and possibility? Thanks.
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
Contra Smith, I congratulate you on having an interest in philosophy of religion, one of the most exciting areas of philosophical inquiry. Actually, many who have been drawn to philosophy have often begun with a fascination with philosophical reflection on religion (Colin McGinn's autobiogr... Read more
Is it fair to compare a belief in God(s) to a belief in fairies?
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
Compare the Blackwell or Routledge or Oxford or Cambridge Companions to philosohy of religion with Brewer's Dictionary of Prase and Fable entry Fairy.
Log in to post comments
Does it makes sense to pray if God's existence hasn't been rationally proven independently of faith? Does the meaning of the practice of praying depend on philosophical proofs of God's existence?
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
I agree with Professor Leaman. I might only add that today most theists do not traffic in "proofs" for God's existence. There are very few, if any, universally acknowledged proofs in philosophy. These days, we more often simply refer to good or bad arguments. It also might be added that... Read more
Suppose I agree with theists that "God exists" is a necessary proposition, and so is either a tautology or contradiction. That seems to indicate that the probability of "God exists" is either 1 or 0. Suppose also that I don't know which it is, but I find the evidential argument from evil convincing, and so rate the probability of "God exists" at, say, 0.2. But if the probability of "God exists" is either 1 or 0, then it can't be 0.2 - that would be like saying that "God exists" is a contingent proposition, which I've accepted it isn't. How then can I apply probabilistic reasoning to "God exists" at all? If I can, then how should I explain the apparent conflict?
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
Interesting points. I take it that the most reasonable reply for a defender of the ontological argument to make is to claim that Prefoessor Smith's world is not in fact possible. If one can make a case for abstracta (properties or propositions necessarily existing) then there cannot be a w... Read more
However hard I try, I cannot shrug off the impression that philosophy asks all the truly important questions, but has always been somewhat vague when it comes to giving staightforward answers to those very questions. Do people have to turn to religion to get final answers? Because one thing is for sure: they are looking for those final answers.
Charles Taliaferro
June 19, 2010
(changed June 19, 2010)
Permalink
I might add a modest point that could be helpful: It may not be helpful to see philosophy on the one side and religion on the other side of a great divide in terms of "final answers" and the offering of clear answers. Many philosophers today and in the past have adopted religious conviction... Read more