New Philosophers Network

From the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS).

---

Dear fellow Christian philosophers and apologists,
Do you know any European evangelical philosophers? We need your immediate help in connecting them to the Philosophers Network in Europe—and to submit papers (by 1 March 2012) or, at the very least, just to attend the conference near Budapest, Hungary (19-24 May 2012). A number of philosophers from the Evangelical Philosophical Society are lending support to this endeavor: William Craig, Scott Smith, Douglas Groothuis, and Bruce Little. (I myself am looking forward to speaking at this forum the following May). View the program here.

Keep in mind these important points:

This Network is European in its vision and content. It is being spearheaded by the European Leadership Forum, and it is not an American outpost.
This year–indeed, this month–is crucial for forming this continent-wide Network. If nothing materializes this year, then this effort will be not be revisited for a good while. So we need your prompt assistance in getting the word out to your European evangelical friends/contacts who have a philosophy degree (masters or doctorate).
In addition to the philosophy, this effort there will be an apologetics Network that is developed as well. What is crucial as that we have as many European evangelical philosophers and apologists as possible attending May 2012 meeting.
I’ve included the relevant information below, but this information is available as an attachment to pass on to your European philosopher and apologetics friends. The other file gives specific information about the May conference in Eger, Hungary. All paper submissions and any questions should be directed to Kevin Saylor at ksaylor@euroleadership.org.

Thank you for your help in this important kingdom endeavor.

All best wishes,

Paul Copan
EPS President

Why Philosophy Matters to Your Faith

James Anderson has nicely and simply captured a major reason why philosophical assumptions matter in understanding world religions, including Christianity. In a word (or picture) it is:

Check out his “Why I Am Not a Panentheist”.

Is God the Cause of All That He Foreknows?

Just to get the philosophical juices flowing…..

In De Libero Arbitrio (On Free Will, Book 111, ii, 4, p 172, in Augustine: Earlier Writings) Evodius asks Augustine,

“Since God foreknew that man would sin, that which God foreknew must come to pass. How then is the will free when there is apparently this unavoidable necessity?”

Of the lengthy response, Augustine states:

“God by his foreknowledge does not use compulsion in the case of future events . . . God has foreknowledge of all his own actions, but is not the agent of all that he foreknows . . . he has no responsibility for the future actions of men though he knows them beforehand.”

Ibid. p 177

Given that God’s knowledge entails true future-tense propositions (“true” with respect to a correspondence between an assertion and its eventual instantiation in space-time), I agree with Evodius’ assumption “that which God foreknew must come to pass.” However, knowing accurately how things turn out is not the same as being the agency of their cause. For example, God knew yesterday that I would blog about this topic today, though yesterday I had no idea what I might post. It was, therefore, a true future-tense proposition yesterday that I would blog on this topic, thus God’s knowledge (or database, if you will) contained this true proposition. But it was my choice today to pick this topic, not God’s. That my choice corresponded to God’s knowledge does not entail that my choice was constrained; only that it matches or maps to that which God knew would come about.

Now, lest you jump onto an Arminian high horse, consider that humans, by their free acts of thought and/or behavior, do not have the ability to alter God’s knowledge of what will occur simply because God’s knowledge of all future events is true. This is not to say that God’s knowledge of future events directly causes human acts of the will. Only that no human activity falls outside the scope of God’s perfect knowledge. Therefore, all human activity is confined to and abides within the parameters of God’s inerrant knowledge. This be true, then acts of the human will are not entirely autonomous but bound by God’s perfect knowledge. Absolute independent, autonomous behavior simply does not exist. All human behavior occurs within the pericope of conditions, which are ordained by, created by, and sustained by God.

Before you disagree, consider carefully various passages on God’s autonomous, independent actions and movement on the human will. Feel especially the weight of God’s supreme sovereignty as you celebrate and contemplate the “freedom” of your will.

Ezra 6:22

“For seven days they celebrated with joy the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because the LORD had filled them with joy by changing the attitude of the king of Assyria, so that he assisted them in the work on the house of God, the God of Israel.”

Ps. 33:10-11

“The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.”

Ps. 115:3

“Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”

Ps. 135:5-7

“I know that the LORD is great, that our Lord is greater than all gods. The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.”

Pr. 16:1, 4, 9, 11

“To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.” “The LORD works out everything for his own ends— even the wicked for a day of disaster.” “In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.” “Honest scales and balances are from the LORD; all the weights in the bag are of his making.”

Pr. 21:1

“The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.”

Lam. 3:37-38

“Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”

Is. 46:9-10

“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.”

Dan. 4:34-35

“At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever. His dominion is an eternal dominion; his kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: “What have you done?”

Acts 2:23

“This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”

Acts 4:27-28

“Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”

Eph. 1:4, 11

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”

Rev. 17:17

“For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God’s words are fulfilled.”

Does God “Intervene?”

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga has been in my Amazon queue and on order since I first learned of it. Well, it finally arrived and there is so much packed into this volume. It’s not an easy read but is accessible to most and has the usual Plantinga flare of being whimsical at times.

Among the many things I’m learning, one question is raised that really got me thinking. In what sense can it be said that God, the creator and sustainer all that exists, “intervenes” in the universe? On challenging the notion of “intervention,” Plantinga notes:

The suggestion is that God would display a sort of arbitrary inconsistency if he sometimes acted contrary to the regularities he has established for his world. But is this really true? There would be arbitrariness and inconsistency only if God had no special reason for acting contrary to the usual regularities; but of course he might very well have such reasons (p 106, emphasis mine).

You can listen to lectures cosponsored with Biola’s graduate and undergraduate philosophy departments and Talbot’s Philosophical Society delivered by Plantinga in May, 2011.

The Devotional Value of Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Doing Philosophy as a Christian by Garrett J. DeWeese is a new release in the Christian Worldview Integration Series by InterVarsity Press. One of the reasons I picked this up is because I know Garry (a.k.a. “Garrett”). Many years ago we spent quite a few hours in a car together commuting to a philosophy conference. It was a delightful time and Garry not only taught me a lot about philosophy, but displayed an exuberant zest for life. I’ve seen Garry a few other times over the years at various engagements and he’s hardly changed. Quite honestly, I don’t know of a happier philosopher!

Chapter 3 “Philosophy Within the Limits of Religion Alone?” caught my attention. Anselm’s oft-quoted credo ut intelligam (“I believe in order to understand”) is often misunderstood. Says DeWeese, the statement actually sets up the ontological argument for God’s existence. DeWeese points out virtually all anthologies that include Anselm’s ontological argument from chapters 2-3 of his Proslogion ignore the closing of chapter 1, which portrays Anselm’s deep desire to know and understand God:

I do not endeavor, O Lord, to penetrate thy sublimity, for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that; but I long to understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe,—that unless I believed, I should not understand.

DeWeese opines that it is tragic the ontological argument for God’s existence is treated as “pure autonomous a priori rationalism” rather than the “continuation of a prayerful meditation and the culmination of Anselm’s considered vision of the relationship of faith and reason” (p. 73). Framed in the context of a meditation and prayer, the credo is not intended to endorse some kind of fideism that seeks to divorce faith from reason. Instead of mere static cognition about a subject, the intended end of faith is understanding, which is “the true explanation grounded in the nature of things” (p. 75). Knowing how to apply the Pythagorean theorem to a problem, for example, is not the same as grasping first principles of Euclidean geometry (pp. 74-75). Likewise, we must first believe certain things about God before we can understanding them. The “way into understanding is believing” (p. 74). Belief necessarily precedes understanding. Anselm’s goal in the ontological argument, therefore, was understanding what he already believed about God. It was wholly devotional!

Now, for your meditative pleasures…

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

For a solid presentation on Anselm’s ontological argument, see To Everyone an Answer (pp. 134-137) and Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (pp. 185-206; esp. pp. 203-205)