Philosophy of Religion

Notes for the meeting on April 17    Readings     Brian Davies, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, Chapter Two, p. 21-33.  Excerpt from J.L. Mackie, "Evil and Omnipotence".  Elmar Kremer, Notes on Evil. It would be helpful to review Talk 6 and 7 in the set of talks on Classical Theism that was part of the reading for Class III. (They can be found at www.wi-phi.com (look for my name under "contributors"). A time-efficient way to prepare for the class would be to listen to Talk 6 and 7, then read Notes on Evil, then read the rest of this posting, using the excerpt from Davies, Chapter 2, to flesh out points made in the posting, and finally reading the excerpt from Mackie.  I: Attempts to discredit belief in God   Attempts to discredit belief in God can be divided into two kinds: Attempts to show that religious belief is false, and attempts to show that religious belief is irrational, or unworthy of grown up people, or outdated or substandar...

An after thought about the class of April 19   The second meeting of the course dealt with the relation of natural human reason to divine revelation. We spent some time on #36 of CCC, which repeats the statement of the First Vatican Council, (A) "God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason," and adds, (B) "Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation." The statement quoted from Vatican I is clear enough, but the addition is puzzling. Why would "this capacity" be thought necessary for man "to welcome" divine revelation. This morning, I went carefully over the context of (A) in the documents of Vatican I. The relevant document is the Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith, in Session Three, Chapters 2 (On revelation), 3 (On faith), and 4 (on faith and reason). Statement (A) in CCC is taken word for word from C...

Class II: April 19 Faith and Reason   Reading:  Alfred J. Freddoso,  "The Necessity for Revelation: A Primer on  Summa Contra Gentiles  1, Chaps. 1-9" )   Supplementary reading: Alvin Plantinga, "Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments" https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/plantinga-alvin-22two-dozen-or-so-theistic-arguments221.pdf   As Freddoso points out, Aquinas divides human knowledge of God (wisdom of the highest kind) into two kinds:  "In those things that we profess about God there are two types of truths. For there are some truths about God that exceed every capacity of human reason, such as that God is [both] three and one. But there are other truths that natural reason is also capable of arriving at, such as that God exists, that there is one God, and others of this sort. Indeed, philosophers, led by the light of natural reason, have proved these truths about God demonstratively" (quoted from Chapter 3 of  Summa Contra ...

 Class I: April 5 A change from the overall course schedule: The reading for this class is limited to the chapters mentioned from Notes on Logic, plus the two arguments mentioned in #5 below. (We will take up the material from Summa Contra Gentiles  in the class on April 19. 1. The nature of an argument.  2. How to evaluate an argument: The difference between deductive and non-deductive arguments. 3. The distinction between an  original premise  and a  derived   premise . Original premises are any premises which are not conclusions of subordinate arguments. Original premises are the  assumptions  of the main argument. A derived premise of a main argument is the conclusion of a subordinate argument within the main argument. 4. Three ways to attack a deductive argument: Is it valid? Is each subordinate argument valid? Is every premise true? Is every assumption of the argument sufficiently evident to serve as a premise?  If an argument is v...

Day 1. (Apr. 5) Analyzing and Evaluating Arguments (Reading: E. J. Kremer, Notes on Logic , Part I-III . Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. 1. Ch. 3 ) Class topics: The definition of an argument . Regimenting and analyzing arguments. Evaluating deductive and non-deductive arguments. Regimenting Aquinas's first argument in Chapter 3 for the conclusion that some truths about God ("divine truths") "wholly surpass the capability of human reason." In effect Aquinas gives an argument based on reason for the conclusion that there is more to know about God than what can be known through reason. Day 2. (Apr. 19) Faith and Reason (Reading: Alfred J. Freddoso, "The Necessity for Revelation: A Primer on  Summa Contra Gentiles  1, Chaps. 1-9" ) Day 3. (May 5) Aquinas' statement that "Man is directed to God as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason."  The distinction between Classical Theism ...