Goals and direction December 15, 2006
Posted by MG in General.trackback
This blog is for philosophical and theological inquiry. My aim is mainly apologetical. That is to say, I’m focused on vindicating (if possible) certain truth claims of the Christian religion. My primary interests are in analytic philosophy of religion. Analytic philosophy is a discipline that deals with a rigorous analysis of the nature of reality. Analytic philosophy of religion applies the objectively-oriented sub-disciplines of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and philosophy of science to questions about God, the universe, humankind, good and evil, and the afterlife.
Some of my specific interests in the field of philosophy of religion are the following:
1. Divine foreknowledge/Molinism–What does God know and how does He rule? I hold to a middle knowledge perspective on providence, so I seek to test the Molinist framework in relation to various theological questions, and to attempt to understand the complicated debate about whether or not it is founded on true presuppositions. (for example the grounding objection)
2. The problem of evil and theodicy–Why does God permit natural and moral evils? Can we even know why? Some work needs to be done by Molinists on this when it comes to moral evils, and the best answers to the problem of natural evil need to be sought after. I lean toward the “comparative response” regarding the problem of evil, as articulated recently in Faith and Philosophy magazine, and think it is probably the best kind of position available on this subject.
3. The atonement–How does Jesus’ death save us? There is no existing philosophically detailed mechanism of the atonement that satisfies criteria of intelligibility, logical/moral coherence, and biblical support. This subject is rarely talked about, unfortunately, and I think a Christus Victor-type model could potentially be most fruitful for explaining the mechanism of atonement.
4. Divine hiddenness–Why is God not so obvious? If He doesn’t reveal Himself to everyone, is He fair? Yet another topic of interest that I have no well-formed responses to. I think that reformed epistemology might hold some answers in this area, but am not quite sure what to make of this problem.
5. Divine Revelation–What is the nature of divine revelation? Here is something else which I wish to understand in relation to the Bible and church. Im not sure if I believe in inerrancy, and I want to understand what the best model of articulating the concept of divine revelation is.
6. Natural Theology–Which arguments for God’s existence work and which don’t? I think several arguments for God’s existence are fairly good (Kalaam, Axiological, Consciousness) and want to see how far they can be defended. Recently, my faith in the Fine-tuning and Religious Experience arguments has been shaken, so I want to see if they can provide any evidential support for theism (it looks like religious experience doesn’t, and fine-tuning seems questionable).
General philosophical topics include:
1. Agency–What is free will? The current position I espouse is libertarianism, and I think the arguments for it are good, but I want to know if its right, given some of the critiques of it in recent times and compatiblism’s arguments.
2. Epistemology–Is foundationalism true? Should we be internalists or externalists? A subject I have little understanding of. It would sure be nice to get a better picture of what’s going on in this field, and to actually develop a distinct position.
3. Abstract Entities–Should I be a nominalist/fictionalist, Platonist, or conceptualist? I think conceptualism fits best with theism, so I lean toward it. But what are the arguments for/against these positions? Should we adopt different views for relations, properties, numbers, values, propositions, etc.?
4. Mind–What is the evidence for/against dualism? How do scientific studies relate to the mind-body issue?
Another field that I have mounting interest in is theology. I used to not care to comprehend the Bible very well, or know much about the tradition of the Christian church, but now I have an intense desire to gain understanding of both.
Some specific interests are these:
1. Biblical atrocities–Why did God do such violent things in the Old Testament? I want to understand how/if God’s character can be vindicated in light of some of the (seemingly) odd things He does/permits.
2. The Kingdom of God–What in the world is it? Its the most important thing in Jesus’ teachings, so I’d really like to learn as much about it as I can.
3. Christology–What is the primary framework for viewing Jesus? Is it as Messiah? As God’s Wisdom? I believe in a theologically conservative view of Jesus, but what’s the most important way the NT has of looking at Him?
4. Historical Jesus–What are the arguments for/against the conservative view of Jesus? How much can we know about what He said and did?
5. Resurrection–What are the arguments for/against the bodily resurrection of Jesus? This is what makes or breaks Christianity, so I want to know what the support is for it, and why some scholars reject it. It seems that they mainly do so because of the prior assumption of metaphysical naturalism or deism, and rule out the possibility of miracles a priori.
These are some of the questions I want to ask. I have some under-developed and amateurish answers to them, but I want to have mature views that are close approximations of the truth. If that leads me to reject my present belief system, then so be it (though I don’t anticipate that it will). A Christian worldview serves as a kind of research program when it comes to the field of philosophy, giving a reference-point and grounding the controlling beliefs that I have. As far as I can tell it stands on a firm foundation, but I want to understand that foundation better. The temptation for me is sometimes to completely intellectualize faith and quench spiritual hunger with philosophy. This also makes humility difficult, and distracts me from the needs of others. Yet for the love of truth, inquiry cannot cease.
This is really good . . .you bring alot of things into question that are aptly due attention. I was curious, why do you say that religious expirence does not provide ample evidence? Due to recent pyscological studies, I have almost lost complete faith in particualr, subjective, emotional expirence can tell concerning the outside world, metaphysical or otherwise. One thing to consider, for instance, why do epliceptics have a high ratio of religious expirence? Evidence like this seems to suggest that religious expirences are a physical function of the mind that is associated with nerual events, and perhaps missfirings. All religions have a derivative brand of mysticism, and I could never be sure enough of myself to, within a Christian context, say that my religious expirence is a geniune result of the good guy up there, while people of every other non-saving faith are deluded to these false, incomplete feelings of peace by external beings of a dubious sort. I dont know, an interesting topic, what is your specific position on this? I know when I heard the William Craig Lane debate, he stated that the majority of Christians around the world, who do not have sufficent access to historical, philosopihcal, cosmological material and its according reasoning, know that Christianity is the 100 percent truth becuase of some nebulous phenological state, a mixture of emotions and particular thoughts. I still have not heard sufficent argumentation to adopt this reasoning, I did not understand last time when we talked about this, when you used the principle of credulity to show wny one shouls trust in the direction that are feelings associated with spiritual events and ideas point us.
Hey, I also purchased a book for you, so when you come down, I will have to give it to you. I will leave my blog adress once I actually post my first blog.
I am really gald that we can both look for truth together, and I think that our blog conversations will be wholly fruitful.
Cribbageking–
You bring up good points. I plan to study the argument from religious experience soon. There has been much discussion of it in philosophical literature of late. As for your statement about William Lane Craig’s view, he’s not saying that the nebulous brain state is necessarily a convincing proof for everyone (especially skeptics) that Christianity is true. He’s saying that if Christianity is true, then God can mediate grace and saving knowledge of Himself through means other than evidence that complies perfectly with modern, enlightenment modes of thought (logical argument and imperical evidence). Thus, we (as the skeptical, distant observers) can’t know if the religious experiences of Christians that confirm for them that God is real are actually true religious experiences of the Christian God independent of background evidence. If Christianity is true, for instance, then these experiences may actually correspond to something. If it is false, they probably don’t. William Lane Craig believes Christianity is true for a variety of reasons, many of which comply with enlightenment modes of thought (are based strictly on empirical and logical considerations) others of which are based on what he considers to be experiences of Jesus. He thinks these experiences are veridical; if Christianity is true, he’s probably right. If it is false, he’s probably wrong. He’s saying basically the same kind of thing I have said to you: the fact that not everyone has sufficient empirical evidnece for Christnaity doesn’t prove that they aren’t rational in their belief in God; it would only be irrational if Christianity were false.
As for issues involving neurophysiology, I saw an article about that in Faith and Philosophy journal. I plan to read it, and maybe photocopy it and bring it when i come down for New Years.
Hopefully I’ll cya soon.