Lovell's dissertation on Lewis

This can be downloaded here. This was the dissertation I was thinking of writing initially, before I focused in on the Argument From Reason.

Why Bother With Philosophy?

Because we can’t help but make choices in those areas. Do we follow one of the world’s established religions, or do we live our lives without religious considerations? How do we decide what’s right and what’s wrong? How do we know the things we know? What is the best way to govern a country?

These questions are hard to escape. We can ignore politics, but politics doesn’t ignore us. We have to decide what is right to do. We claim to know certain things. I once say a bumper sticker that said “Sleep in on Sunday and Save Ten Percent.” Should we do that, or do we live in accordance with the teachings of a religion? Not to decide, is to decide. Our actions speak for us, even when our words do not.

Philosophy looks at chess

This looks interesting. But I'm going to wait for Dennis Monokroussos to review it before I decide whether to buy it or not.

Response to philosophy frustration

This is a response to some frustrations which a student expressed to me, and which are, I think, typical of a lot of people who are introduced to the subject. If you've taught philosophy for any length of time, you know where this student is coming from.

I know that philosophy, by its nature, can be frustrating, and it requires somewhat different skills than what you might be accustomed to using in other classes. I make no apologies for that; the discipline of philosophy is what it is.

There is a common conception when students come to philosophy classes that everything falls into two general categories, fact and opinion. If it is a matter of fact, we can settle it by some broadly scientific method. If it is a matter of opinion, then different people have different opinions, and we are all entitled to our opinions. Philosophical questions are all matters of opinion, and therefore there is something absurd and perhaps even offensive about grading a philosophy paper.

I think this neat division of everything into two boxes, fact and opinion, which we learned all the way back to fourth grade at least, is a distortion of the truth. Just because we cannot settle a question to everyone's satisfaction through a well-defined method doesn't mean that there can't be better or worse reasons for believing what we do, or that we shouldn't be aware of the reasons for and against what we believe. Whether it is worthwhile to spend time working through one's world-view and putting a lot of reflection into that, or whether there are other, more adequate uses for a person's time is not something I can answer for someone else.

But people do have decisions to make that affect their lives. They have to decide whether to become actively involved in one of the world's major religions, and for Western religions, this invariably involves belief in the existence of God. They have to decide what they think is real. They have to decide what sources of knowledge they can rely on, and what sources they should call into question. They have to decide by what rules they decide what is right and wrong. And they have to decide whether they really think they have a free will, and also whether they are the persons who have an eternity to look forward to, or whether it all ends with the grave.

Even if you have decided all these questions in your own mind, others around you are making those decisions, and I take it you are in conversation with them.

As for grading philosophy papers, I do not grade papers in philosophy on the basis of whether I agree with the person's beliefs. Two things I look for are 1) How clearly you state your own position, and 2) The extent to which you carefully reflect on and articulate why you believe what you do as opposed to what others believe.

I wouldn't have ended up in the job that I have if I didn't think that philosophy was a valuable enterprise. I cannot make that judgment for other people. However, since we're in a philosophy class, we have to do the philosophy curriculum. After 23 years of teaching experience, I can tell you that you are not alone in your philosophy frustrations.

Adam Barkman's new book on Lewis and Philosophy

This is the opening chapter of a 600 page book on philosophy and Lewis that focuses largely on his historical development. Often in reading Lewis I have noticed a difference between the philosophical climate of his own time and our time. This book is very helpful to understanding that difference.

A guide for new philosophy students

This is helpful.

A Wikipedia List of American Philosophers

It is interesting to see who is, and is not, on this list. I'm not on it, Bill Hasker (!!!) isn't, but some other interesting people are.

Bill Vallicella Rates the Philosophers

And finds that a bunch of theists are on the top seven. It's arguable that Hume was a theist of sorts as well, in spite of his use of the argument from evil and his criticisms of theistic arguments.

A Chesterton Quote in Defense of my Discipline

HT: Rasmus Moller.

"The best reason for a revival of philosophy is that unless a man has a philosophy certain horrible things will happen to him. He will be practical; he will be progressive; he will cultivate efficiency; he will trust in evolution; he will do the work that lies nearest; he will devote himself to deeds, not words. Thus struck down by blow after blow of blind stupidity and random fate, he will stagger on to a miserable death with no comfort but a series of catchwords; such as those which I have catalogued above. Those things are simply substitutes for thoughts. In some cases they are the tags and tail-ends of somebody else's thinking. That means that a man who refuses to have his own philosophy will not even have the advantages of a brute beast, and be left to his own instincts. He will only have the used-up scraps of somebody else's philosophy; which the beasts do not have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always one of two things: either a
complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy. Such broken bits are the phrases I have quoted: efficiency and evolution and the rest. The idea of being "practical", standing all by itself, is all that remains of a Pragmatism that cannot stand at all. It is impossible to be practical without a Pragma. And what would happen if you went up to the next practical man you met and said to the poor dear old duffer, "Where is your Pragma?" Doing the work that is nearest is obvious nonsense; yet it has been repeated in many albums. In nine cases out of ten it would mean doing the work that we are least fitted to do, such as cleaning the windows or clouting the policeman over the head. "Deeds, not words" is itself an excellent example of "Words, not thoughts". It is a deed to throw a pebble into a pond and a word that sends a prisoner to the gallows. But there
are certainly very futile words; and this sort of journalistic philosophy and popular science almost entirely consists of them.

Some people fear that philosophy will bore or bewilder them; because they think it is not only a string of long words, but a tangle of complicated notions. These people miss the whole point of the modern situation. These are exactly the evils that exist already; mostly for want of a philosophy. The politicians and the papers are always using long words. It is not a complete consolation that they use them wrong. The political and social relations are already hopelessly complicated. They are far more complicated than any page of medieval metaphysics; the only difference is that the medievalist could trace out the tangle and follow the complications; and the moderns cannot. The chief practical things of today, like finance and political corruption, are frightfully complicated. We are content to tolerate them because we are content to misunderstand them, not to understand them. The business world needs metaphysics - to simplify it.
(...)
Philosophy is merely thought that has been thought out. It is often a great bore. But man has no alternative, except between being influenced by thought that has been thought out and being influenced by thought that has not been thought out. The latter is what we commonly call culture and enlightenment today. But man is always influenced by thought of some kind, his own or somebody else's; that of somebody he trusts or that of somebody he never heard of, thought at first, second or third hand; thought from exploded legends or unverified rumours; but always something with the shadow of a system of values and a reason for preference. A man does test everything by something. The question here is whether he has ever tested the test."

A New IVP book on Lewis and philosophy

Includes my essay "Defending the Dangerous Idea," based on my anti-Carrier presentation from OxBridge 2005.

This is now out and looks really good.

Class Notes on Christianity and Philosophy

I. Christianity and Philosophy
Although many of the issues we encountered in Ancient Greek philosophy are still issues for us today, two major developments have come onto the intellectual map since then. One is monotheistic religion, represented primarily in Europe by Christianity. The other is modern science.
The Growth of Christianity
Christianity began as a small Jewish sect, grew extensively through the first 3 centuries of the Church without the support of political institutions. Then, in the fourth century, it became legal to engage in Christian worship publicly, and finally Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Athens and Jerusalem
Inevitably, Christianity and philosophy came into contact with one another. The first time that happened was recorded in the Book of Acts chapter 17, when the Apostle Paul preaches to the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers at the Areopagus.
Christianity is a revealed religion. It claims that certain truths have been revealed to us by God. This is delivered to us through the Bible and the Church.
Philosophy is an enterprise that attempts to discover truths on our own steam, without God revealing them to us.
So inevitably there were issues as to what Christianity should make of philosophy, and vice versa.

Christian responses to philosophy
One response is the hostile response of Tertullian of Carthage. He said asked “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” implying that the correct answer is “nothing.” One should accept the truths of Christianity, not raise philosophical questions about them.
Others, like Clement of Alexandria, made extensive use of philosophy to understand Christian truths. Considered especially friendly to Christianity was Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophy.
Augustine
St. Augustine was a Christian convert relatively late in life, who became perhaps the most influential Christian philosopher and theologian of all time.
A period of accepting Neoplatonism played a role in Augustine’s rejection of materialism and moved him closer to conversion.
So he maintained that Platonic philosophy was good as far as it went, but that it needed to be supplemented and corrected by revealed Christian truth.
Medieval Philosophy
In the Middle Ages prior to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, Christian philosophy was extensively informed by Platonic philosophy.
Aristotle’s writings became known to the West due to the impact of the Crusades
The Impact of Aristotle
Many people found Aristotle’s arguments persuasive, but a number of teaching seemed to contradict Christian doctrine.
Aristotle taught that the world was eternal and uncreated, and he seemed to deny personal immortality.