God and Truth VI Talk Overview
This is an outline of my talk from the God and Truth VI panel: I would like to argue three things. First, a common false dichotomy; second, the meaning of…
God and Truth VI
Join us on Tuesday, Oct 23, for God and Truth VI. This year we will discuss how to find meaning. Can nihilism be avoided if we deny that there is…
Knowledge and Proof
Knowledge and Proof I overheard this discussion today (only slightly fictionalized): Tim: You can do what is right without being able to prove it is right, otherwise 98% of people…
Reason and Faith
I recently gave a talk titled “What is Reason?” This might seem very abstract and it is. I am asking for a definition of “reason” in itself, not reason as…
The Value of Philosophy
For one of my classes we read Bertrand Russell’s The Value of Philosophy. In this work he considers a number of benefits that come from the study of philosophy. The one…
Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
From one of my lectures: Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” involve three fictional speakers named Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes. These three discuss natural theology, or what can be known about…
Book Review: Why God? Explaining Religious Phenomena by Rodney Stark
Book review: Originally posted: Why God? Explaining Religious Phenomena, Rodney Stark, Templeton Press, 2017 (ISBN 978-1-59947-520-2), viii + 296 pp., hb $24.99
In his newest book, Rodney Stark addresses two main questions and provides us with a scientific method for answering these questions. The questions are: (1) what is religion, and (2) is religion disappearing from world history. To answer these questions, he provides us with an account of what it means for a theory to be scientific and how the most popular scholarly definitions of religion fall far short of this goal. Some of them he labels scurrilous metaphors at best, all of them are godless in that they attempt to define religion without reference to God where Stark believes this will fail. Stark defines his own approach in contrast to the most widely used definitions and methods found in religious studies today. For instance, he considers the popular definition of religion given by Emile Durkheim: Religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church and all those who adhere to them. (p. 2)
Renewing Philosophy
Is there a need to renew philosophy and its pursuits? I’ve suggested some ways that there are in the description of renewal philosophy. Now I’d like to think about ways…
Modernity and Its Idols
(from the preface to my book The Natural Moral Law) As Aeneas, our great ancestor, Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder The old Anchises bear . . ….
Kinds Of Gaps In Knowledge: The Conflict Of Appeals To God And Methodology Naturalism In Developing Explanations Of The World
First Published: The Heythrop Journal © 2013 Trustees for Roman Catholic Purposes Registered. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
To refer to God in explaining a physical event or process is called using the ‘God of the gaps.’ This is a pejorative phrase in that it is thought to indicate superstition and hinder the under standing of how the physical world actually works. To invoke God as the explanation is said to not further one’s understanding of the physical causes, and indeed to hinder understanding. Conversely, methodological naturalism explains physical events without reference to non material causes. This does not commit one to metaphysical atheism or naturalism, but is a method/model for interpretation that is believed to be superior because it offers explanations that can be duplicated by others in contrast to explanations that involve ‘an act of God.’ The goal of methodological naturalism is knowledge, and proof that knowledge has been attained is that the results can be duplicated and confirmed by others – the results are universal. The defect of appeals to God is that such appeals cannot be confirmed, are used where ignorance leaves a lacuna and abandoned as soon as that space is filled with a natural explanation, and do not further our understanding of the physical world. And yet, both historically and currently, appeals are made by notable thinkers to a God of the gaps style explanation, in accounting for design or irreducible complexity, beauty, values, and meaning in life. I will endeavor to show that filling gaps with unproven assumptions is much more common and widespread than one might think, and is done by those who speak against the ‘God of the gaps’ approach. Does a truly scientific worldview require rejecting all appeals to God as a source of explanation?