Philosophy Foosball

Promoting Providence

2012-01-27T10:58:00.000-06:00

This is an excellent promotional video of Providence University College. Many thanks to Bob Wiebe (VP Educational Marketing Department), Camren Friesen (Nice! Productions), Bethany Dueck (music), and Joel Coursey (script). Clearly, students should come to Providence! P.S. Providence offers a minor in philosophy.

On Plantinga's new book

2012-01-26T13:43:00.000-06:00

Philosopher Jay W. Richards has begun what promises to be a very careful review of Alvin Plantinga's new book (on science and religion), Where the Conflict Really Lies. Look here. - Dr. V

2012-01-11T09:53:00.000-06:00

Many people have asked me, "What's the point of studying Philosophy?" and "How are you going to make any money doing so?" Well I have finally found an answer for these skeptics. By appealing to the consumerist culture of North America, Philosophers have discovered a way to profit off the ignorant masses by means of philosophical merchandising. Go ahead, browse around, maybe you'll find something you'd enjoy, or maybe you'll finally be able to prove to your dad that you can make a living off philosophy. Check out the Unemployed Philosophers Guild for more details.

On Miracles

2012-01-08T12:52:00.000-06:00

Here is an interesting interview with Craig S. Keener about his new book Miracles.

- Dr. V

On Apologetics

2011-11-19T13:17:00.000-06:00

"Why should/do I believe in God?" This is a question that is almost constantly being asked. Apologetics come up with elaborate arguments to convince people that God exists, or (more recently) to disprove the negative arguments of the New Atheists. This is all fine and good, however, transformation requires more than just clever arguments and the power of words. Good apologetics must be coupled with prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit for hearts to change. Below is an interesting sermon given by Australian theologian, Ben Meyers. He argues that at the center of Christianity is revelation, and it is by this revelation through Jesus Christ that we can believe in God. Think of Habermas and Licona's minimal facts approach and the fact that the disciples were transformed into boldness by what they had seen of the Resurrection. The incarnation of God in Jesus Christ is the greatest apologetic we have.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

The VDB Report: Faith and Politics

2011-10-30T14:25:00.005-05:00

The VDB Report
A Personal Look at FAITH AND POLITICS
By Hendrik van der Breggen

I've been thinking about faith and politics lately. I have been spurred to think about these matters because I attended the recent Providence University College lecture series which featured the Hon. Rev. Bill Blaikie, a United-Church-minister-turned-MP-and-MLA plus able defender of "social gospel." Mr. Blaikie's overall lecture series was titled "God, Government, and Gospel: Christians and Politics." Individual lectures were titled "The Naked Public Square vs. the Naked Marketplace," "Market Fundamentalism: Idolatry and Inequality," and "Top Ten Scriptures for Faith and Public Life." There was also a panel discussion and Q&A. Having this highly respected parliamentarian speak at Providence was a coup for Providence, and the organizers of this lecture series are to be congratulated. Mr. Blaikie's talks were insightful and caring, and I encourage Philosophy Foosballers to learn from Mr. Blaikie's work. (Blaikie's book The Blaikie Report is available in the Providence Bookstore. More info about the lecture series can be found here.)

Here is what I've been thinking. There is a very real concern about the autonomy of the world's market economy, which Blaikie calls "the naked marketplace." According to Blaikie, the marketplace is morally naked, i.e., there is an absence of biblical values in the market economy, though there was at one time a biblical moral framework, as presupposed by Rev. Adam Smith in his famous book Wealth of Nations (1776). According to Blaikie, the market's emphasis on short-term contracts, individual self-fulfillment, and technical efficiency creates a "market mentality," and this market mentality eats away at the moral framework that Smith required for capitalism to function properly. Blaikie calls blind adherence to markets "market idolatry." The result: unjust economic practices and unjust social structures. To rectify these injustices, Blaikie sees an important role for a strong social-democratic government.

I agree that there are some unjust economic practices and unjust social structures, and I agree that there is generally an absence of biblical values in the market; therefore I think that criticism and correction of such injustices are appropriate. So I found myself sharing some important common ground with Blaikie (though we might disagree on the prevalence or extent of the injustices and on the nature of the political solutions).

But I also found myself wondering about several important questions (this wonder was triggered when Blaikie mentioned in passing that there are always people coming to politicians for various government spending favours, and when Prov's communication and media professor observed that though we often blame media for its sensational news coverage, the media tends to reflect or respond to what the larger population finds interesting). Here are my questions: In our growing desire to embrace government solutions to social problems, is there an unnoticed shuffling of a general human moral problem—concerning greed and desire for power—from one human social structure to another human social structure? If the market can become an idol, cannot the government—even a democratic government—become an idol too? In the general absence of biblical values in our society, what keeps us from shifting from a market fundamentalism to a government fundamentalism?

These questions are important, it seems to me, because the social structures of a society, whether they are marketplace structures or government structures, are spawned by the hearts and minds of the people who constitute society—and therefore will tend to reflect those hearts and minds. Significantly, in post-Christian Canada the many people who constitute government along with the many people who purport to hold government to account share values that tend not to be biblical moral values.

Two days after the Providence lecture series, while I was listening to the radio during my morning drive to Providence, I heard a fellow from Ottawa's National House of Prayer say this: "[I]t's not the system that's broke, but rather the people inside that need help. Our problem is moral, not economical."

I would venture to say that the problem is both moral and economical—and spiritual. Just as there is an absence of biblical values in the many people who govern society via markets (e.g., large corporations, consumers) and so unjust socio-economic structures tend to emerge, there is also an absence of biblical values in the many people who would wish to govern the markets via government (e.g., politicians, voters) and so unjust governance also tends to emerge.

How then do we transform people spiritually to hold biblical values? Enter: the Gospel.

I asked Mr. Blaikie about the role of the Gospel in personal transformation of a society's individual members, and he responded that basically the Gospel is a given in his understanding of the social gospel. He mentioned (if I remember correctly) that he came from a church where people would testify to how God saved them from their "personal demons" such as, say, alcoholism. Mr. Blaikie also remarked that he never saw any capitalist CEOs come to church and testify about their repentance from the sin of greed. I didn't pursue my question further, because I thought Mr. Blaikie's answer was a good one (and I'm not a quick thinker). But over the past few days I've been thinking (slowly but surely). It turns out that I am one of those people who had an alcohol "demon" (and other demons) and I've testified in church to God's deliverance from such personal demons. Like Blaikie, in the churches I attended I didn't see any CEOs confess and repent from their greed. I would add, though, that I also didn't see any politicians and government bureaucrats stand up and confess and repent from their sins of power-mongering, misspending of government funds, or general abuse of the people's trust.

I don't wish to come across as cynical. I'm sure that there are decent and honourable politicians who strive to do politics for the common good. Bill Blaikie is certainly one of them, and I would add Vic Toews and others to my list. But I'm also sure that there are decent and honourable capitalists who strive to do business for the common good too. Some businessmen and businesswomen associated with Providence quickly come to mind. (On the topic of business for the common good, a helpful video discussion is "Ethics in the Marketplace," which is part 5 of Charles Colson and Robert George's Doing the Right Thing: A Six-Part Exploration of Ethics. A helpful book on this topic is Kenman Wong and Scott Rae's Business for the Common Good: A Christian Vision for the Marketplace.)

My point is this: We must be careful to diagnose problems correctly. If social structural problems are unjust and require social structural solutions, then I say "Amen!" to such solutions (though we might argue about the best way to administer the solution). But as far as external social solutions go, I think they never really can go far enough.

Allow me to be personal here (once again). I tend toward introspection. I think that the philosophical quip "know thyself" is important. Significantly, in my personal life I have found that my very ability to discern the good plus be motivated to do good (especially when it's not in my apparent self-interest) was enhanced not by a social solution, but by soul surgery. I grew up with social gospel. But it wasn't until (at age 30) I accepted that Jesus is truly God in the flesh, that Jesus died on the cross to reconcile the sinful world to God, and that Jesus actually resurrected to show that death and sin do not have the last word—it wasn't until I realized this message was true—that my heart and mind were renewed and I became more concerned about others than about myself. Some would use the words "spiritual awakening" or "born again" to describe my experience.

In other words, I've been thinking this: In our embrace of what's true and good in the social gospel, let's be sure that we never forget to continually embrace what's true and good in the Gospel message that centers on Jesus' life, death, and bodily resurrection. Take some time to reread John 3:16 (and maybe read theologian Michael Wittmer's book Don't Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus is Not Enough). I'm quite sure that without the Gospel up close and personal, the social gospel withers. I'm quite sure too that with the Gospel up close and personal—that is, in the hearts and minds of the larger population—the appropriately social dimensions of the Gospel will flourish in a democratically governed society as they morally ought.

What do Philosophy Foosballers think?

- Dr. V

P.S. When it comes to discussions of faith and politics, we should keep in mind that the proclamation of the life-transforming and eternally-significant Gospel message of salvation from sin through Christ requires religious freedom. This is a freedom that includes freedom of speech. As noted a couple of weeks ago by Philosophy Foosball Club blogmaster Ryan Turnbull, the issue of freedom of speech concerning religious matters is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it's important to realize that such freedom includes the freedom to evangelize—i.e., the freedom to share, explain, intellectually defend one's faith—a freedom that sometimes requires stating (respectfully) some uncomfortable truths about sin. Regardless of whether the sin is stereotypically a concern of Christians on the political left (e.g. sin having to do with social inequality, unfair economic distribution, environmental abuse) or stereotypically a concern of Christians on the political right (e.g. sin having to do with abortion, embryonic stem cell research, sex), we should pray that religious freedom prevails. We should not pray that our government engages in evangelism; we should pray that our government protects the freedom to evangelize—i.e., our freedom to carry out Christ's great commission in all of the dimensions of life.

New Atheism... yawn

2011-10-22T11:41:00.000-05:00

I'm really glad that people notice the fact that the New Atheists really don't have a whole lot going for them. It's not just that I think they're wrong, they're just really mediocre and boring, give me Friedrich Nietzche or Bertrand Russell. Here is an interesting article on Dawkins' continued cowardice.

Christian Apologist at U of M

2011-10-19T20:59:00.001-05:00

The Christian scholar-scientist Kirk Durston will be speaking at the U of Manitoba on Thursday and Friday (October 20 and 21). Kirk Durston, B.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering), B.Sc. (Physics), M.A. (Philosophy), Ph.D. (Biophysics), is a philosophically astute scientist, with a heart for serving God in the academy. Durston is also the national director of the New Scholars Society (an affiliation of Canadian university professors who are Christians).

Lecture topics:

- Is God relevant today?
- Can an intellectual believe in God?
- Why does God allow evil and suffering?

For more information, contact Campus for Christ.

Discussion Topic for this week.

2011-10-18T22:43:00.000-05:00

Last meeting we decided to discuss the question, "Is it ever ok for a Christian to purposely cause an altered state of consciousness on oneself?" This is an interesting and I think important question in an age where drugs, alcohol, and other mind altering substances are readily available and widely used in our culture. Hope to see everyone out tomorrow to discuss this important question for Christian living.

Tolerance

2011-10-11T09:21:00.000-05:00

In light of the current Supreme Court Case dealing with the issue of Religious Freedom and Freedom of speech I think it is crucial to review the concept of Tolerance. I will be presenting a van der Breggenian distinction of two senses of Tolerance and the fallacy of equivocation that so often results.

Tolerance Sense 1:
All views are equal, we can't judge any view as being better than any other view, some views are just different than others. We somehow must agree with everyone.

Tolerance Sense 2:
Some views are better than others. I disagree with view Y because I think view X is better, but I still love and tolerate all persons who hold view Y even though I think they are wrong.

Everyone understands that we should practice tolerance as a virtue. However the tolerance that is referred to is T2 which somehow gets morphed into T1. This is faulty because there are inherent logical contradictions that come with T1 that demonstrate that this view of Tolerance should be rejected. T2 is the way to go, "Be egalitarian in regards to people but elitist in regards to ideas".

Religious Freedom in Canada

2011-10-09T20:29:00.000-05:00

This Wednesday, October 12, a very important case is coming before the Supreme Court of Canada. They will be exploring these two issues:

1) Can Christians preach and teach against what we believe to be a sinful behaviour--a behaviour that we believe ultimately harms the person involved--but still love the person?

2) Can Christians be critical--in public--of the activities of a person or community without this criticism being understood as hatred?

The EFC will be presenting arguments to defend our right to religious freedom. Please pray that truth and justice would prevail and that our Canadian right to religious freedom is maintained. See here for more information.

Euthyphro Dilemma in 1 minute

2011-10-07T17:23:00.001-05:00

EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA

The Euthyphro Dilemma is often set out as an objection to the relevancy of God for ethics. Here is The One Minute Apologist with philosopher William Lane Craig who provides an overview of the dilemma plus a critique -- all in 1 minute. (Actually, 2 minutes and 12 seconds.) Happy philosophical pondering!

- Dr. V

Critical Thinking Fail

2011-10-01T22:23:00.000-05:00

Today as I wandered around on Facebook I stumbled across a picture of a sign that read:
"Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around,
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats."

At first I was a little disgusted and annoyed, but then my training under VDB kicked in and some philosophical rubber hit the road, if you will.

What this sign is in essence saying, underneath the crass vulgarity, is that it is ok to have beliefs and even to be proud of those beliefs, but it is not ok to share them ever. "That's just your opinion man" kind of attitude. The ironic part is that the very thing that this sign complains about, i.e., forcing others to buy into one's opinion; is exactly what this sign is doing. It is trying to make everyone buy into this idea that it is not ok to ram opinions down people's throats by ramming an opinion down our throats.

This sign can safely be ignored.

"180" Movie

2011-10-01T16:20:00.000-05:00

A bit polemical but it is interesting to see that when confronted with the fact that an unborn child is a human life, people get extremely uncomfortable.

Peter Hitchens Author Interview--The Rage Against God

2011-10-01T13:27:00.001-05:00

The Rage Against God is an excellent book and is available in the Providence Bookstore.

Biology and the Christian Tradition

2011-09-10T16:17:00.000-05:00

As many of us are aware, one of the major weapons used by atheists against religion is that of science; specifically evolutionary biology. Well, no more, St. Margaret's, as usual, is jumping out there to engage with cultural phenomenon and explain how it relates to the Christian truth. On September 24th they are having a lecture series to explore Biology and the Christian Tradition. See here for more details. Contact myself (Ryan Turnbull) if you are interested in going to this event and we may be able to get a car load together from Prov as a PFC event.

Alvin Plantinga

2011-08-27T17:09:00.000-05:00

Blogmaster Emeritus, Mark Jensen, recently posted a series of videos of philosopher Alvin Plantinga on his blog, Dining With the Queen. I have been watching through them and enjoying them immensely. This clip below is on properly basic beliefs. Plantinga suggests that it is proper to assume God just as we assume that there are other minds or that the past really happened. I hope you enjoy this thoughtful video.
.

Interesting book...

2011-08-18T11:29:00.001-05:00

Truth Considered & Applied: Examining Postmodernism, History, and Christian Faith
by Stewart E. Kelly

Here is a book that should be of interest to philosophy, theology, and history students, as well as perhaps everybody else. The author, Stewart E. Kelly, is professor of Philosophy at Minot State University. More information about the book can be found here.

- Dr. V

Assisted suicide not dead yet.

2011-08-02T21:09:00.000-05:00

Today as I was listening to the CBC it was mentioned that courts in BC are once again battling over the issue of Physician Assisted Suicide. For more reading check here. Canadians currently have a right to life, it does not follow from that right that we can decide when to end our lives. What are your thoughts on this folks?

HELPING EAST AFRICA

2011-07-29T21:31:00.004-05:00

Horn of Africa food crisis. Somalis fleeing hunger in their drought-stricken nation walk along the main road leading from the Somalian border to the refugee camps around Dadaab, Kenya, on Wednesday, July 13. More than 11 million people in the Horn of Africa are confronting the worst drought in decades and need urgent assistance to stay alive, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. (Rebecca Blackwell / AP)

Helping East Africa

We can help East Africa in various ways. Here are a few: Canadian Red Cross, Compassion Canada, International Justice Mission, International Needs Network, Samaritan's Purse, World Vision. Prayer is important, too. Christ is our hope and strength.

- Dr. V

P.S. On the philosophical problem of evil and suffering, my August 27 2009 Apologia column titled "Pointless Evil Versus God's Existence?" might be of interest to readers. It's certainly not the last word on the matter, but it's food for thought. Also, an important book is philosopher William A. Dembski's The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. A couple of more recent, also important books are these: Norman Geisler's If God, Why Evil? plus David Baggett and Jerry Walls' Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality.

Summer 2011 Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner

2011-07-14T14:41:00.001-05:00

The Summer 2011 Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner occurred! At one point the guest list consisted of 14 current or former Providence students/ employees. Dinner was great (many thanks to Mrs. VDB). Subsequent philosophical discussion (about art and beauty), games (foosball, crokinole, bocce ball), and book crawl were great too! See below for photos.

Summer 2011 PFC Dinner Photos

2011-07-14T14:30:00.003-05:00

PHILOSOPHY FOOSBALL CLUB DINNER

2011-07-05T21:55:00.003-05:00

Important Notice:

Dr. V will be hosting a Dinner at his place on Saturday, July 9th at 5:30. For anybody who has been in attendance at one of these before, you know the good times that are sure to happen.

For those planning to attend, please RSVP by email to Dr. V by Friday, noon at the latest.

Hope to see you all there!

Fallacies

2011-06-26T23:04:00.000-05:00

This past winter I took a Critical Thinking class at Providence, (a must take for pretty much anyone who wants to think properly) and learned a lot. However, it has become nearly impossible for me to take seriously some people's poorly reasoned arguments when they are so full of fallacies. I thought I would provide you members of PFC with a list of fallacies so that you will be better able to reason properly and show the truth of Jesus Christ in a reasonable and logical fashion.

1. Ad Hominem
- Attacking the person instead of his/her argument

2. Affirming the Consequent
- A corruption of the logical form Modus Ponens, where one sets it out P->Q; Q therefore P instead of the proper form P->Q; P therefore Q.

3. Anecdotal Argument
- A premise that describes a story or anecdote is used to infer a general point in a hasty manner.

4. Appeals to Authority, Fear, Pity, Popularity, and Tradition
- Using an appeal to any of the above as a premise when doing so is invalid.

5. Begging the Question
- Assuming as proven that which is at issue, I recently saw a beautiful example of this, "Murder and revenge are inherently morally wrong and never justified. Therefore, capital punishment is morally wrong and is never justified."

6. Causal Slippery Slope
- An argument that claims that if one causal event goes through it will trigger a causal chain that will end in calamity, but this slippery slope is usually unfounded and merely a projection of the arguer's fears rather than having any basis in truth.

7. Composition
- Arguing from the parts to the whole, i.e., these parts have property x therefore the whole being must have property x.

8. Confirmation Bias
- Only acknowledging evidence that lends positive support to one's argument and disregarding all negative evidence.

9. Confusing Correlation and Cause
- The fallacious assumption that because two things have a positive correlation, event A must cause event B, i.e., a survey of a class reveals that there is a strong correlation between large foot size and high grades, the assumption then is that large foot size causes high grades which is fallacious.

10. Denying the Antecedent
- A corruption of the logical form Modus Tollens (proper form is P -> Q; ~Q therefore ~P) which is instead laid out as P->Q; ~P therefore ~Q which is wrong.

11. Division
- Arguing from the whole to the parts, ie, the whole has property y therefore the parts have property y.

12. Equivocation
- When a key word in the premises is used in multiple senses and the conclusion is derived from this ambiguity. A fun example: "Nothing is better than sex, philosophy is better than nothing, therefore, philosophy is better than sex."

13. False Dichotomy
- A statement claiming either x or y when x or y do not exhaust all the possible options, a famous example of this is the Euthyphro Dilemma

14. Faulty Analogy
- When an analogy between two items are two superficial to support a conclusion, this was an alleged critique of Paley's watch analogy.

15. Guilt by Association
- Using a supposed link between an individual and a group or other individual of ill repute to cast a poor reflection upon said individual.

16. Hasty Inductive Generalization
- "A hasty inductive generalization occurs when a person generalizes from a single anecdote or experience, or from a sample that is too small or too unrepresentative to support his conclusion." (Govier 382)

17. Ignorance
- Occurs when because of a lack of knowledge about a proposition, one makes an assertion about it, by pointing to the lack of evidence against that assertion as proof.

18. Objectionable Cause
- Asserting that even A caused even B when other interpretations of the available data have not been ruled out.

19. Our Side Bias
- "Selective application of principles and norms so as to treat one's own side more leniently than the other side." (Govier, 383)

20. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
- The false assumption that just because event B came after event A, event A must have caused it.

21. Slippery Precedent
- A case that on its own is good, but if permitted, could lead to a number of bad conclusions.

22. Straw Man
- Misrepresenting an opponent's argument and making a weakened version of it which is then easily defeated.

23. Tu Quoque
- A type of ad hominem fallacy in which you reject a person's argument because they are guilty of the same thing they argue against. I.e., a smoker saying don't smoke and listing reasons for doing so, if one replies, "Well you do it", one has committed the tu quoque fallacy.

24. Two Wrongs make a Right
- an attempt to convince someone that they should allow one wrong thing because something else equally as wrong is common practice.

25. Vagueness
- an argument that uses language that is unclear as to its meaning. The language is so vague that it is impossible to determine the veracity of it.

This list was taken from Trudy Govier's "A Practical Study of Argument" and more detail on these fallacies can be found on pages 378 to 385.

May we all strive to reason carefully in glorifying our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Dawning of a New Era

2011-05-24T20:11:00.000-05:00

Hello fellow philosophers!

I, Ryan Turnbull, am your new Philosophy Foosball Club Blogmaster. I thought to kick things off I would give you a brief introduction to the man who's mediocre ramblings you will be forced to endure throughout the next year or so.

I am eighteen years old, from Russell MB and have been a Christian for the larger portion of that time. I grew up on a farm and attended an Alliance Church which is how I learned of Providence. I graduated from Major Pratt School in 2010 and headed to Prov that fall. I began working towards a BA in Biblical and Theological Studies, and hope to graduate in 2013.

As for my philosophical interests, those began in grade 11 when I took a week-long enrichment class at the U of W, it was really interesting, but really frustrating because everyone else was an atheist. I came to Prov and ended up taking 4 philosophy courses and joining the PFC. I have to admit that Dr. V has contributed immensely to my understanding of philosophy and how I view the world. Truth matters folks.

I have a special love for apologetics, not necessarily searching out people to debate with, but knowing why I believe and what I believe, so that, if necessary I may give a defense for my faith. I'm especially interested in ethics, or morality, the nature of good and evil and the like.

I still have much to learn, as do we all, I hope this next year of blogging, discussing, and foosball playing will be great fun and will lead us into a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ, and give us a greater understanding of some answers to the most important questions.

New Blogmaster!

2011-05-23T13:28:00.000-05:00

CHANGING OF THE GUARD

It is my privilege to make two announcements on behalf of the Philosophy Foosball Club blog:

1. Jordan Byggdin has graduated from Providence College (congratuations Jordan!) and has retired as our blogmaster (we will miss you). Jordan Byggdin will henceforth be known as PFC blogmaster emeritus, joining our first blogmaster Mark Jensen in holding this prestigious title (only two persons in all of history hold this title).

2. Ryan Turnbull has accepted the position of blogmaster (three cheers for Ryan!). We look forward to having Ryan at the helm of the PFC blog.

- Dr. V

Who is Ayn Rand?

2011-04-21T20:52:00.000-05:00

For some interesting summer-time listening and reading about the popular philosophy of Ayn Rand (1905-1982), whose book Atlas Shrugged has recently become a movie, check out Clayton Jones, D.Min. (Jones is assistant professor of apologetics at Biola University.)

Radio interview on Issues, Etc. (April 15, 2011):
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

Blog posts:
Ayn Rand & Atlas Shrugged: Introduction
Ayn Rand: The Good
Ayn Rand: The Bad
Ayn Rand: The Ugly Self-Esteem Movement
Ayn Rand: The Ugly—Rejection of Oversight

- Dr. V

WHY PHILOSOPHY?

2011-04-10T17:30:00.001-05:00

For an apologia for philosophy, see what Maverick Philosopher has to say here.

- Dr. V

Most Valuable Player

2011-04-02T15:53:00.002-05:00

To whom will the 2010-11 Philosophy Foosball Club MOST VALUABLE PLAYER AWARD go? Find out at the PFC lunch on Wednesday, April 6, 2011. (Note: No mug will be awarded; the mug photo is for attention-grabbing only.)

Update (April 6, 2011): This year's recipient of the PFC MVP Award is Jordan Byggdin. Congratulations Jordan!

Update (April 11, 2011): This year's recipient of The Philosophy Award is David Ward. Congratulations David!

- Dr. V

Helping Japan

2011-03-19T16:31:00.002-05:00

BBC News Asia-Pacific photo: Japan earthquake and tsunami (March 11, 2011)

HELPING JAPAN

We can help Japan in various ways. Here are a few: Canadian Red Cross, Compassion Canada, CRASH Japan, World Vision. Prayer is important, too. Christ is our hope and strength.

- Dr. V

P.S. My August 27 2009 Apologia column titled "Pointless Evil Versus God's Existence?" might be of interest to readers. It's certainly not the last word on the matter, but it's food for thought. Also, an important book is philosopher William A. Dembski's The End of Christianity:Finding a Good God in an Evil World.

Trends in Christian Philosophy Books

2011-03-10T09:15:00.006-06:00

This month Zondervan is publishing Four Views on Divine Providence. It is the most recent book in their growing "Counterpoints" series. If you're not familiar with this series, it consists of books on various important topics in philosophy and theology, with several authors of differing viewpoints each contributing a chapter. These books are designed to give readers an overview of the various Christian perspectives on an issue, and allow them to make up their own mind on which is the best position. (Brazos Press has also recently published a book in a similar vein, entitled Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views.) The Counterpoints series has three sub-series:

I confess that I like these kind of "multi-perspective" books because they feature top-notch scholarship and promote civil dialogue amongst Christians. They teach us how to disagree, and how to consider opposing views instead of dogmatically ignoring a view you don't agree with. They help avoid the straw person fallacy, foster critical thinking, and demonstrate that Christian unity doesn't require uniformity on every topic.

Still, it's interesting to think about what the popularity of these kind of books signals about Christianity in the 21st century. After all, it's hard to imagine the Counterpoints series being published one hundred years ago. Is it possible to interpret the success of these books as a result of the pluralistic contemporary culture that Western Christianity exists within, a culture that loves "perspectives"? Or to see them as an example of the fractured or branched nature of the church?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I'm looking forward to reading some of these books, I'm also curious about the changes within the Western Christian subculture, and in the larger Western culture, that led to a desire for these kind of books.

Thoughts?

The Smiths

2011-02-23T17:00:00.004-06:00

Today at PFC lunch we once again discussed topics arising from James K. A. Smith's book, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006). For those interested, Smith was recently interviewed on the EPS blog. He has some intriguing things to say that are helpful for understanding his position. Amongst other things, Smith discusses the difference between knowledge and understanding, "affections" and "philosophical intuitions" versus feelings and emotions, and the concept of worldview.

Today at PFC lunch we also discussed the relationship between metaphysics and epistemology. Here is the original Christian Smith quote that caused me to bring up this topic:

Critical realism seeks to offer a constructive framework for understanding science that is alternative to both the positivist empiricist paradigm, on the one hand, and constructivism, postmodernism, and certain versions of the hermeneutical perspective, on the other . . .

Critical realism's central organizing thought is that much of reality exists independently of human consciousness of it . . . [and] that humans can acquire a truthful, though fallible knowledge and understanding of reality through various forms of disciplined conceptualization, inquiry, and theoretical reflection . . .

In critical realism, to spell out a few specifics, ontology (the study of being) is prioritized over epistemology (the study of what and how we can know) -- a move that feels alien to us moderns and postmoderns who naturally prioritize epistemology, but which we nevertheless must make presuppositionally in order to get anywhere worth going in science [and philosophy]. That which is cannot be immediately constrained by limits on the knowable of it. First we come to terms with what we believe is and what it is like, then we examine the possibilities for knowing about it. According to critical realism, the real is not coterminal with the empirical. So, we must distinguish among the three aspects of the real, the actual, and the empirical. The real is what exists -- material, nonmaterial, and social entities that have structures and capacities. The real exists whether we know or understand it. The real possesses objective being apart from human awareness of it. The actual by contrast, is what happens as events in the world, when objects that belong to the real activate their powers and capacities. The actual happens in time and space, whether we experience it or not. The empirical, by contrast, consists of what we experience, either directly or indirectly. Thus, what we observe (the empirical) is not identical to all that happens (the actual), and neither is identical to that which is (the real). The three must not be conflated.

Christian Smith, What is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 92-93.

Polkinghorne Podcast

2011-01-24T15:12:00.004-06:00

There are a whole host of Christian thinkers who have written books on the relationship between science and religion, though I have found none more helpful than Sir John Polkinghorne (and Alister McGrath). Those currently enrolled in Dr. V's Philosophy of Science course may be interested in this recent podcast interview with Polkinghorne, entitled "Quarks and Creation" (53 mins, transcript here if you prefer to read it). Here's the description:

Science and religion are often pitted against one another; but how do they complement, rather than contradict, one another? We learn how one man applies the deepest insights of modern physics to think about how the world fundamentally works, and how the universe might make space for prayer.

Enjoy!

Caffeine Ergo Sum

2011-01-10T16:30:00.000-06:00

Is it just me or is there a mysterious link between philosophy and hot beverages? Perhaps hot drinks are inherently stimulating (hence the phrase "steeped in thought," perhaps). I certainly drink much more tea and coffee since I began studying philosophy at Providence. I'm even willing to assert that the development and spread of Western philosophy bears an uncanny resemblance to the expanding global trade of coffee and tea in centuries past (I think this would make for a research great paper next time Dr. V teaches History of Philosophy).

Socrates was known to meditate all day in the snow, though he probably came inside for some hot chocolate from time to time. Descartes couldn't have stayed holed up in that Bavarian cabin for very long without a nice relaxing cup of piping hot tea at the end of each day. Legend has it that Aquinas strode the damp, chilly streets of medieval Paris with a travel mug in hand. Schopenhauer was probably so gloomy because nobody ever brewed the poor guy a decent cup of coffee. And Sartre certainly didn't hang out in that coffee shop for the free wireless internet.

This phenomenon continues on in modern times. In fact, Christopher Hitchens has recently written a brief (and thoroughly English) article entitled "How To Make a Decent Cup of Tea." Providence's own Dr. V has been known to frequent Lecoka in Steinbach, as has yours truly (I recommend their vanilla bean cappuccino). Yes indeed, it certainly seems that hot beverages are conducive to philosophical thought.

Continuing this long and fruitful relationship between philosophy and hot drinks, this semester the Philosophy Foosball Club will be meeting on odd-dated Wednesdays in the Providence cafeteria at noon, beginning January 19th. The cafeteria has a fine array of Lipton teas, and surprisingly decent coffee (they also serve lunch). Hope to see you there!

Evangelical Philosophical Society news

2010-12-01T09:11:00.002-06:00

As many Philosophy Foosballers know, I (Dr. V) had the wonderful opportunity to travel with my wife (Carla) to attend the annual meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the EPS Apologetics conference. (For more information, see Providence News.)

I had the pleasure of seeing and hearing Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, J. P. Moreland, Michael Licona, John Warwick Montgomery, Angus Menuge, Irving Hexham, Craig Keener, and others. We are blessed to have such fine people doing such excellent intellectual work!

Books at the conference were sold at 40 to 50% off the regular price, so I almost exceeded the weight limit for my airline luggage on the return trip! Two recently published books stood out from all the others, and I hereby draw your attention to them: Michael Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (InterVarsity Press) and Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Baker).

Pruss' Argument From Forgiveness

2010-11-19T15:45:00.001-06:00

To my mind, there are few contemporary philosophers of religion who are more inventive than Alexander Pruss of Baylor University. Though he knows the classical arguments of philosophy of religion well (cosmological, ontological, etc.), he's also constantly creating new arguments for theism. I find his creativity inspiring, and also very instructive for budding undergraduate philosophers (like those frequently found lunching every odd-dated Wednesday in the Providence cafeteria).

Back in September, Pruss posted an interesting argument from forgiveness that I think is worth pondering. It's reprinted below (click here to go to the original post, which includes follow-up comments).

(Premise) If one has done a wrong, one ought to ask someone for forgiveness of it.
(Premise) If God does not exist, there are some wrongs (e.g., the murder of someone who has no friends or relatives) that one cannot appropriately ask anyone for forgiveness of.
(Premise) If one ought to do something, then one can appropriately do it.
Therefore, if God does not exist, there are some things one ought to do but cannot appropriately do. (By 1 and 2).
Therefore, God exists. (By 3 and 4).

Thoughts?

Second Ever Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner a Success!

2010-11-07T14:04:00.013-06:00

SECOND EVER PHILOSOPHY FOOSBALL CLUB DINNER A SUCCESS!

The evening of Thursday, October 7 2010, was the second ever Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner (see photos below). Here are some details:

1. The dinner was held at Dr. V's home in Steinbach. Excellent catering was provided by Carla (Dr. V's wife) and Tom (Carla's and Dr. V's son, who is a first year Providence student with a strong interest in business). Big thanks to Carla and Tom!

2. In total, 15 students/ former students from Providence College attended the dinner. (Extra thanks go to Carla and Tom for the fine—and large—meal.)

3. The PFC dinner was graced by a visit from Landon Oakes, a former Prov student and current philosophy student at Bemidji State University in Minnesota. We're glad Landon could make it. (Note: In photo #4 [see below], Landon looks like he was glad to have made it too, since he seems to be taking a very long time to say grace. Nicole Dyck and Phil Wiebe are being very polite as Landon continues praying through after-dinner coffee.)

4. Joining the PFC event too, momentarily via Facebook, was a special guest from Thunder Bay: Former Prov student Elizabeth Busby! Lizz sent her greetings.

5. After dinner, student president Garrett Erskine presented a fine and encouraging speech. Thanks Garrett! (Dr. V realized later that former student president Paul Oleniuk, who also was at the PFC dinner, should have been asked to say a few words too, plus should have made a speech at last year's PFC dinner. Paul, please be forewarned: At next year's PFC dinner you will be asked to give three speeches! (And, yes, Garrett, you are hereby forewarned, too.)

6. After Garrett's speech, the PFC discussed two major and deeply interesting philosophical topics/ questions (though, of course, a few other topics and questions were sprinkled in). The first topic, introduced by Jordan Byggdin, was an argument from sociologist Christian Smith's recent book, What is a Person? Here is Jordan's summary of the topic: "In essence, Smith argues that simple correspondence between thought/ proposition and external world/ object is not legitimate, since the two are essentially different kinds of things. Smith suggests 'transpositional correspondence' instead, a process by which we 'translate' or 'recode' facts about the external world into truthful propositions, relying on the presupposed validity of our senses and other means." The second topic was introduced by Jeff Honsberger, and here is Jeff's summary of the topic (and sketch of the discussion): "The second question began by building off/ misrepresenting a line from the RSA Animate lecture, First as tragedy, then as farce, 'the worst slave owners were the ones who were nice to their slaves.' The discussion meandered, beginning from an attempt to question which has greater moral imperative micro or macro change, if the two are in opposition. The subjects of slavery, biblical arguments for and against social justice, Marxism, capitalism, social justice, charity, as well as a discussion of the actual lecture which the original question diverged from were all addressed periodically. Here is the original lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g." Both topics were excellent and thoroughly discussed. Many thanks to Jordan and Jeff!

7. After the philosophical discussions, numbers were drawn (yes, to once again honour Pythagoras) and Philosophy Foosballers were allowed, in an orderly fashion, to (a) enter the tiny hallway to Dr. V's sacred space (i.e., his basement office/cellar), (b) sift through a pile of books (which no longer fit in Dr. V's library), and (c) take home some favourites. (Fun project: See if you can find the photo below wherein Sean Brewster, Garrett Erskine, and Jeff Honsberger are waiting for their turn to look for books and are doing, with varying/ dismal degrees of success, impressions of Auguste Rodin's The Thinker. Hint: You may have to click on photo #8 [below] to get a better look.)

8. During the "book crawl" and over coffee, various philosophical discussions were continued (although, as photo #11 seems to show, Mark Jensen is simply reading a story to David Ward). Speaking of coffee, it's interesting to note how caffeine affects people differently: See the golden aura/ halo of calmness in the photo of Jordan Byggdin and Paul Oleniuk, and then see the lack of calmness in the photo where Mark Jensen and Malcolm Montgomery give us the thumbs-up. (Next year the four of you will be limited to one cup of Java!)

9. No Crokinole games were played this year, apparently because of rumours from last year's PFC dinner that the "v" in "Dr. V" stands for virtuoso (in Crokinole). (Yes, this is a throwing down of the Crokinole gauntlet! Did you read this last sentence, Rob Horsley?!)

In sum, the second ever Philosophy Foosball Club dinner was excellent—and a wonderful success. Thanks to all who attended.

- Dr. V

Second Ever Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner Photos (Okay, so next year we should hire a professional photographer…)

2010-11-07T13:51:00.001-06:00

On Truth

2010-11-04T09:00:00.011-05:00

Os Guinness speaks on truth in a 14 minute video titled Why Truth Matters. Christian Week editor Doug Koop reacts negatively to Os Guinness's "tough words...". For some clarification of the concept of truth look at H. vander Something-or-other's "What is truth?" - Dr. V

P.S. Some comments about the Second Annual PFC Dinner are (still) forthcoming. I apologize for taking so long.

Charles Taylor event postponed

2010-10-28T10:42:00.004-05:00

Sadly, the Charles Taylor lecture at the U of Winnipeg has been postponed due to illness. For further information, check here or here.

- Dr. V

Charles Taylor at U of W

2010-10-19T14:30:00.003-05:00

Canadian philosopher Dr. Charles Taylor, professor emeritus at McGill University and author of A Secular Age and Sources of the Self, will be giving a free lecture at the University of Winnipeg on Thursday, October 28th at 7:30pm in the Convocation Hall. The lecture is entitled, "Solidarity and Diversity in a Secular Age: Managing Belief and Unbelief in the Public Square." Did I mention it's free?

If you live nearby, this is a great opportunity for you to see an influential contemporary philosopher (and Christian) discuss an important topic that affects all members of society. I strongly encourage PFC members to attend!

Two Abortion Articles

2010-10-05T16:30:00.003-05:00

Thanks to Dr. V for the link to the first article.

Also, check out this website featuring hundreds of links to videos of Dr. William Lane Craig.

The Berlinski-Hitchens Debate

2010-09-21T18:00:00.001-05:00

On September 7th, 2010, Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinski squared off at the Fixed Point Foundation in Birmingham, Alabama before a capacity crowd of 1,200. The question being debated was whether or not a purely atheistic society is preferable to a religious one. Overshadowing the debate was Hitchens' recent cancer diagnosis (as you can see from the above picture, Hitchens has lost his hair due to chemotherapy). The debate was filmed and will be released on DVD in November, just in time to make it on to your philosophically-inclined Christmas wishlist.

I'm especially interested in listening to this debate because, while many debate opponents are mismatched, I think Berlinski and Hitchens are well suited to debate each other. Both men are rhetorical, witty, iconoclastic public figures. This decreases the chance that the debate will be won or lost based on one debater out-talking another.

Click here to read an overview of each debater's main points, as well as some issues raised by the debate. Click here to read a newspaper review and see some pictures of the debate. Finally, click here to read Fixed Point Foundation executive director Larry Taunton's reflections on the evening.

Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Religion

2010-09-12T15:30:00.002-05:00

Robert Gressis, a contributor over at The Prosblogion, a philosophy of religion blog, has posted a couple of very interesting articles about recent developments in the field of philosophy of religion. The first is entitled, "Atheist Burnout and the Direction of Philosophy of Religion." It discusses philosopher Keith Parsons and his recent public decision to quit the philosophy of religion because he no longer finds theism respectable, let alone tenable or presentable. Parsons writes, "I just cannot take their [theistic philosophers'] arguments seriously anymore, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it." As soon as Parsons said this several others philosophers admitted that they had reached the same conclusion. Gressis' three brief reflections on this situation are, in my opinion, worth reading.

The second article is entitled, "Philosophy of Religion as Seen by Atheists." It follows up on the subsequent comments and discussion generated by Parsons' announcement, and summarizes the two main opinions floating around this issue.

What are your thoughts on these recent developments in the philosophy of religion? Do you think they could they be part of some larger movement within philosophy or Western society (e.g., university politics, academic freedom, the "New Atheism")? If more atheists quit or discredit the philosophy of religion, what ripple effects might it have on the discipline in the future?

New Apologetics Links

2010-08-18T16:00:00.001-05:00

Looking for some summer reading to tide you over until Dr. V's philosophy courses begin? Then check out the 'Christian Apologetics Links' and 'Philosophy Links' sections of the PFC blog. They have been updated with several new links to philosophers, apologists, and apologetics organizations of note. There are also many other interesting links available on the right-hand side of this blog.

Also, for more links, take a look at Apologetics 3:15's list of 100 Christian Apologists, and their Christian Apologetics Blog Directory. Happy reading!

Creation Trailer

2010-08-12T16:00:00.000-05:00

Hello Philosophy Foosballers! I hope your summer is going swimmingly. In no time at all we will be back at Providence. In the meantime, check out this trailer for the movie Creation, a new bio-pic about Charles Darwin. We might have a public screening of this movie sometime in the Fall. It looks like it will stimulate some philosophical debate about the relationship between science and religion and, more specifically, between Christianity and Darwinian evolution.

Paths Up The Mountain

2010-06-20T21:00:00.011-05:00

Hello philosophy foosballers! I hope your summer break is going well. Here's some philosophical food for thought as you mow the lawn, drive to work, sip a slurpee, fire up the barbecue, or head to the beach on a sunny day. The topic: religious pluralism. Are all religions just different paths up the same mountain? Or can only one be ultimately true? Is salvation attainable for those outside my religion? Why do so many religions exist? How can I know which is really true? These are questions we ask ourselves sometimes, and Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, thinks they're perennially important and still worth discussing in contemporary Western society. So he has written a new popular book called God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run The World And Why Their Differences Matter (HarperOne, 2010).

In a recent interview Prothero says, "The world is furiously religious" and so thinking and talking about religion is still very important, even in our postmodern, secular day and age. In the book's trailer he adds, "It [religion] is something that motivates people militarily, economically, politically. We need to know something about the great religions of the world in order to make sense of the world that we live in." In the interview he goes on to say that the two approaches to comparative religion that dominate our Western society currently -- lumping all religions together and labeling them as bad, as the New Atheists do, or saying that all religions are basically the same, as relativists do -- aren't fair to the world's faiths because these approaches fail to appreciate the important differences between religious traditions.

So what does all this have to do with us? Well, for we philosophically-inclined foosballers, what is important about this book is not its ridiculously long subtitle, but the ideas behind it, i.e., the ongoing philosophical debate about religious pluralism and the current social milieu into which this book is being released. In this book Prothero aims to question some of the dominant assumptions that many people in our society hold about religions. In a culture in which "tolerance" is highly prized, Prothero's book risks being misunderstood as intolerant and narrow-minded, when in fact it is trying to broaden people's thinking by clarifying the debate and fostering constructive interfaith dialogue.

In my mind, this is an issue where philosophy directly intersects with current events, ethics, and the public sphere. Religious pluralism isn't just an idea debated in classrooms. As Prothero points out, what we think about the world's religions will have an impact on how we relate to one another individually and on a societal level: "How do we get along with one another? It's not by pretending we're the same. It's by acknowledging the differences we have and then coming to understand them and respect them." This necessarily involves some careful philosophical thinking and religious literacy (the latter being a topic that Prothero has also written on).

I don't know about you, but I think this book will stir up some much-needed public dialogue about religious pluralism. I hope it will also foster some critical thinking about comparative religion, atheism, and relativism. Anybody thinking about reading Prothero's book this summer? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the book, on religious pluralism, or on the dominant way people think about religions today. Is there a certain way of thinking about religious pluralism that you have found helpful? Are there certain points which you feel are often missed in these discussions?

Ok, I'll let you get back to your summer activities now. Happy thinking!

Plantinga retires

2010-06-02T15:40:00.006-05:00

Alvin Plantinga, professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, has retired. Read the full story here.

- Dr. V

Changing of the Guard

2010-05-10T10:54:00.001-05:00

NEW BLOGMASTER

It is my privilege to make two announcements on behalf of the Philosophy Foosball Club blog:

1. Mark Jensen has graduated from Providence College (congratuations Mark!) and has retired as our blogmaster (we will miss you). Mark Jensen will henceforth be known as PFC's blogmaster emeritus.

2. Jordan Byggdin has accepted the position of blogmaster (three cheers for Jordan!). We look forward to having Jordan at the helm of the PFC blog.

- Dr. V

NEW AWARD!

2010-04-18T18:00:00.006-05:00

Philosophy giving wings to Boethius

The Philosophy Award. Given to a student who has shown excellence in scholarship in the area of Philosophy. Students who receive this award must have an AGPA of 3.5 or higher after completing a minimum of 30 credit hours at Providence College. (Winner will be announced at the graduation banquet.)

- Dr. V

Most Valuable Player

2010-04-08T21:31:00.007-05:00

To whom will the first-ever Philosophy Foosball Club Most Valuable Player Award go? Find out at the PFC lunch on Friday, April 9, 2010. (Sorry, no T-shirt will be awarded; it's just to grab your attention.)

- Dr. V

Philosophy! What's it good for? Absolutely...EVERYTHING!

2010-03-03T12:34:00.006-06:00

Why Study Philosophy?

To answer this question, here is a statement by Jordan Kotick, Vice-President J.P. Morgan, Wall Street:

While considering what to study in my first year as an Undergraduate, I decided to take a few Philosophy courses. When informed of my decision, those I knew murmured, "Philosophy . . . what are you going to do with that?" Soon after my first year was complete, realizing that I enjoyed these courses and my intellectual curiosity was peaked and challenged, I decided that one of my double majors as an undergraduate was going to be Philosophy. The echoes grew louder as those I knew grumbled "Philosophy? what are you going to do with that?" After four years and a Bachelor of Arts Degree under my belt (with a major in Philosophy), I realized there was more Philosophical work to be done. I decided to go to Graduate School. You can only imagine the reaction I received when I announced that I was going to spend the next two years beginning and hopefully completing my Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy. They shouted "Philosophy? what are you going to do with that?" as the cries of derision grew exponentially. It is interesting to note what has happened since completing my M.A.. To make a long story short, of late, I have been pursuing a top job at one of the leading investment banks in the world. This position was"short listed" to 150 people as interviews went on concurrently in various countries around the globe. At the end of the process, I received the offer and am now working in New York as a Senior Strategist at one of Wall Street's leading firms. After accepting the offer, I asked the Board, who ultimately made the final decision, why I was chosen above the others. Without blinking an eye, the Head of the Strategic Hiring Committee stated a list of reasons, the very first of which was "Out of all the people we considered, you were the only one who studied Philosophy, not to mention having a Masters Degree in it. That told us immediately that you can think outside the box." I have come to realize the answer to the question perpetually posed, "Philosophy? what are you going to with that?" The correct response is "Absolutely anything you want." As Robert Frost said, "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference."

- Dr. V

P.S. Jordan Kotick is now with Barclays Capital, as Head of Global Technical Strategy.

P.P.S. Jordan Kotick and I did our M.A. degrees in Philosophy together at the University of Windsor. He became rich, famous, and travels around the world; I became a philosophy professor in Otterburne, Manitoba, and I sometimes drive to Winnipeg. On frosty Manitoba mornings I've noticed that even among the roads less travelled, some have far less traffic than others.

P.P.P.S. For more information on why you should study Philosophy, check out Why Study Philosophy? and Why We Shouldn't Hate Philosophy (the latter is for persons who may be concerned that the Bible has a negative attitude toward Philosophy).

Intelligent Design seminars

2010-02-22T15:57:00.001-06:00

The Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture is now advertising its 2010 Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design (July 9-17 in Seattle, Washington). The seminars are open to college students (juniors or seniors) and graduate students (first-year) in the natural sciences, social sciences, or humanities. Also, students whose applications are accepted will receive financial assistance for course materials, lodging, meals, and travel. For more information, look here.

- Dr. V

Justice

2010-02-09T11:15:00.001-06:00

"To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3 (NIV)

For some practical ways of doing what is right and just, check out International Justice Mission Canada. For a fine philosophical-apologetical look at IJM-founder Gary A. Haugen's book Just Courage, read Dallas K. Miller's review.

- Dr. V

Helping Haiti

2010-01-14T23:57:00.001-06:00

We can send help to Haiti in various ways. Here are a few: Canadian Red Cross, Compassion Canada, World Vision. Prayer is important, too.

- Dr. V

P.S. The photo shows some of the destruction due to the recent earthquake in Haiti. Christ is our hope and strength.

Essay Contest

2010-01-10T15:13:00.000-06:00

ESSAY COMPETITION TO HONOUR JOHN POLKINGHORNE'S 80th BIRTHDAY

"In 2010 the International Society for Science and Religion will be celebrating the 80th birthday of its founding President, John Polkinghorne. In association with the Ian Ramsey Centre in Oxford, it is organizing a conference on 'God and Physics' as part of this celebration, to be held at St. Anne’s College, Oxford, UK, from 7th to 11th July 2010. ... ISSR will also be publishing a festschrift on Polkinghorne’s work, based in part on invited papers to be given at this conference. In addition to these two activities, and with funding from the John Templeton Foundation, the Society now offers three substantial prizes to students or younger academics (not yet in a tenured post) for an essay, of no more than 10,000 words, on an aspect of Polkinghorne’s work: 1st prize £10,000; 2nd prize £5,000; 3rd prize £2,000."

For more information, click here.

- Dr. V

Is God good?

2009-12-29T20:26:00.000-06:00

"Why do you believe God is good? This is the question for a new video contest sponsored by B&H Academic. If you are a college student taking at least 12 hours per semester you can enter. The winner will receive $5,000. Enter here." (But first read the fine print below.)

- Dr. V

The Fine Print: It will probably be helpful to move to the U.S. prior to submitting one's entry, since the contest is open to U.S. colleges and universities only. Whether one moves to the U.S. or not, the video contest should be philosophically interesting, so let's keep a lookout for the winning entry. (Dembski's book looks philosophically interesting, too.)

Introducing Radical Orthodoxy

2009-12-25T02:19:00.000-06:00

I have been reading the work of a theologian named John Milbank who is the founder of an recent theological movement called Radical Orthodoxy. This interview on CBC radio explains it. They present an interesting reading of the history of philosophy and its relation to theology, in particular the relationship between faith and reason. Enjoy!

Evangelical Philosophical Society

2009-12-23T10:21:00.000-06:00

For your information, here is the EPS December 2009 newsletter. Merry Christmas to all! - Dr. V

The Best Of Both Worlds

2009-12-18T11:29:00.000-06:00

Husserl and Heidegger

2009-11-29T11:44:00.000-06:00

Zeitgeist

2009-11-24T14:32:00.000-06:00

A few years ago a internet film titled "Zeitgeist" achieved fame in the world wide web. The film presented three major events/movements which have influenced society (Christianity, September 11th Attacks, Banking system) and argued that they are nothing more than conspiracies aimed at the goal of social control. Of interest to me was the first part which argued that there was no historical Jesus, instead there is onlu a Jesus based on a conglomerate of Egyptian myths. Few responses to the film have been adequate and today I found one of them. Here is a very good point by point response. Also, check out Gregory Boyd's work Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition for a good counter argument to arguments similar to the Zeitgeist film. Even (Christ Myth advocate) Robert Price recommends it!

http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/

Enjoy!

Faith and Science

2009-11-17T12:11:00.000-06:00

Providence College Lectures 2009
2009-11-16

(Announcement from the Providence website.) Faith and science are both interested in the origins of the world, but these different factions seem to disagree an awful lot. Could they ever work together?

At the upcoming Providence College Lectures, guest lecturer, Dr. Glen Klassen will present A Scientist Reflects on How God Makes the World. He will be exploring topics on how traditional ideas of creation are challenged by the scientific approach and will ask the question, “is there any middle ground between Creationism and Darwinism?”

Klassen taught “molecular evolution” for many years at the University of Manitoba and researched the evolution of the ribosomal gene cluster with the help of graduate students. He is now an adjunct professor of biology at Canadian Mennonite University and is a member of the Fort Garry Evangelical Mennonite Church. Over the years, Klassen has occasionally published and spoken in the area of faith and science.

A panel discussion will follow Klassen’s lectures featuring Providence College and Seminary President Gus Konkel. Konkel has also expressed a passion for science saying, “It is rational to ask the why question if intelligent design was part of the earth from the beginning. It makes even more sense if that intelligent design is personal, with a personal interest in other persons.”

The lectures will be on Thursday, November 19, beginning at 9:00 am in the Reimer Student Life Centre. Admission is free and no registration is required.

9:00 Traditional Ideas of Creation Challenged by the Scientific Approach

10:30 How Some Scholars are Trying to Turn the Clock Back on Darwin (Intelligent Design)

1:00 Is There Any Middle Ground between Creationism and Darwinism?

2:30 Panel Discussion: Providence College Faculty and Students (Chuck Vandergraaf, Gus Konkel, Bruce Duggan, Jordan Byggdin)

All Philosophy Foosballers are encouraged to attend! - Dr. V

Of Beauty and Consolation with Richard Rorty

2009-10-26T19:12:00.000-05:00

This video occupied my mind a good portion of the summer.

Faith and Reason

2009-10-24T12:16:00.000-05:00

As a follow-up to Prov's recent Faculty Forum ("How Do You Know? Doubt, Certainty, and Faith") , the following short article might be of interest to Philosophy Foosballers: "When Atheists Believe: The confounding attraction of the Christian worldview," by Chuck Colson with Catherine Larson (Christianity Today, October 22, 2009). Whatever one's view is concerning the relationship between faith and reason, the article should provide some ideas to kick around.

Dr. V

Randomness?

2009-10-12T14:59:00.000-05:00

At the philosophy club supper Jordan brought up the philosophical question pertaining to God's foreknowledge and the issue of randomness in the evolution of biological life. I and a fellow bearded philosophy foosballer argued that the term random appeared to have an ideological function in which it assumed atheism and therefore no teleology. This then came to discussing the mechanisms of evolution and whether they were truly random. Maybe we should have sifted out a better understanding of randomness, but anyways I brought to attention the ideas of Simon Conway Morris, a christian palaeontologist, who has a sort of view that says that given the laws of physics and the structure of carbon, carbon based life forms are inevitable. The idea behind this was that it would call the whole idea of randomness into question and introduce the question of design.

So I said I would link all of you to video so here it is. A big part of this documentary is concerned with Extra-terrestrial life. You see pretty quickly how Morris' ideas apply to these questions. Morris begins to discuss his ideas a little after 10:00 in the video. I suggest we continue this subject at the next philosophy meeting.

- I have also found a documentary on Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. I should put it up in the future.

- Also, a good book which discusses Morris' ideas is Why There Almost Certainly Is A God: Doubting Dawkins by Keith Ward. I read it this summer and thought it was one of the better critiques of Dawkins. The chapter of interest would be chapter 2, "Large Aeroplanes and God."

First Ever Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner a Success!

2009-10-10T15:17:00.000-05:00

FIRST EVER PHILOSOPHY FOOSBALL CLUB DINNER A SUCCESS!

The evening of Thursday, October 8 2009, was the first ever Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner (see photos below). Assuming that there exists a Platonic form of The Good Dinner which we can use as a standard of excellence, the PFC dinner was excellent—a success!

Here are some details:

1. The dinner was held at Dr. V's home in Steinbach. Excellent catering was provided by Carla (Dr. V's wife) and Thomas (Carla's and Dr. V's son, who that evening also had to go to the Steinbach Regional Secondary School to receive a Culinary Arts Award). (Tom was congratulated at the PFC dinner with three loud cheers from the Philosophy Foosballers.)

2. Joining the PFC event were Carla's parents from Medicine Hat, Alberta. (It was learned later from Carla's mother that Carla's mother and student Clayton Swan danced in the kitchen, but that's a story for another time.)

3. Joining the PFC event too was a special guest from Thunder Bay, Ontario: Elizabeth Busby! We're glad you made it, Elizabeth. To paraphrase Anselm (sort of), you are a Philosophy Foosballer than which it’s extremely difficult to conceive of one greater!

4. In total, 14 students/former students from Providence College attended the dinner. (Extra thanks go to Carla for the fine—and large—meal.)

5. After dinner, we engaged in several deeply interesting philosophical discussions, ranging from the nature and efficacy of argument, to the question of what it means to have a "common ground," to the question of the whether randomness and God's foreknowledge are logically consistent, to the question of how many earlobes Aubrey Dyck actually has. (Regarding the earlobe question, see photos below. Be sure to notice how far Mark Jensen has gotten by counting carefully on his pinky. Notice too the deep concentration shown by Marilyn Peters as she counts Aubrey's earlobes by hand. Yes, that's Marilyn's head on the TV tray table.)

6. After the philosophical discussions, numbers were drawn (in honour of Pythagoras?) and students were allowed, in an orderly fashion, to (a) enter the tiny hallway to Dr. V's sacred space (a.k.a. his basement office/cellar), (b) sift through a large pile of books (which no longer fit in Dr. V's office/cellar), and (c) take home some favourites.

7. Also after the philosophical discussions, and during the "book crawl," the Philosophy Foosballers broadened their horizons by playing some video games—high speed auto racing—and some hard-shooting Crokinole. Happily, nobody was injured. (Well, perhaps the egos of Jeremy Gerbrandt and Mark Gareau were slightly injured when they lost so miserably to the excellent team work of Clinton Enns and Dr. V.)

Again, the first ever Philosophy Foosball Club dinner was excellent—a wonderful success. Thanks to all who attended.

- Dr. V

First Ever Philosophy Foosball Club Dinner - Photos!

2009-10-10T11:35:00.000-05:00

What Is Philosophy Good For?

2009-09-15T01:50:00.000-05:00

John Armstrong interviewed on the Philosophy Bites podcast.

Paul Tillich Interview

2009-07-31T20:49:00.000-05:00

The Coming Evangelical Collapse?

2009-06-27T17:31:00.000-05:00

Conversation with William Lane Craig

Bultmann on Freedom

2009-05-28T20:08:00.000-05:00

I have been doing a bit of reading for my thesis project next year and I came across this quote I would like to share from the New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann:

Genuine freedom is not subjective arbitrariness. It is freedom in obedience. The freedom of subjective arbitrariness is delusion, for it delivers man up to his drives, to do in any moment what lust and passion dictate. This hollow freedom is in reality dependence on the lust and passion of the moment. Genuine freedom is freedom from the motivation of the moment; it is freedom which withstands the clamor and pressure of momentary motivations. It is possible only when conduct is determined by a motive which transcends the present moment, that is, by law. Freedom is obedience to a law of which the validity is recognized and accepted, which man recognizes as the law of his own being. This can be only be a law which has its origin and reason in the beyond. We may call it the law of spirit or, in Christian language, the law of God.
- Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, (New York: Charles Scribner's and Sons, 1958), 41.

Paul Tillich On Relativism

2009-04-18T21:04:00.000-05:00

The logical position against any claim of relativism to absoluteness is that "absolute relativism" is a self-contradictory term, an impossible combination of words. If one avoids this impossible combination of words, relativism itself becomes relative; therefore an element of absoluteness is not only a possibility but even a necessity, otherwise no assertion at all can be made.

But absolute relativism is also impossible practically. If I am asked to surrender totally to relativism I can say "But I live! I know what 'true' and 'false' mean, I do something I can describe as 'better' than something else, I venerate something which concerns me ultimately and which for me is holy." The question then is: How can one make such statements if relativism has the last word? In the different reality of man's encounter with reality there must be some absolutes that make meaningful life possible, of it would be like the chaos before creation, described in Genesis. Therefore I believe it may be a service to life itself to find these absolutes and to show their validity and their limits.

- Paul Tillich, My Search of Absolutes, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967), 65-66.

Amen Paul!

Does the God of Christianity Exist, and What Difference Does It Make?

2009-04-05T15:23:00.000-05:00

Discussion with Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, and Jim Dennison.

BEWARE OF TRUTH

2009-04-01T12:05:00.000-05:00

A defense of Derrida by Peter Benson at Philosophy Now.

New Metaphysics Blog!

2009-03-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

Matters of Substance

ALL PHILOSOPHY FOOSBALLERS RESPOND

2009-03-30T15:57:00.000-05:00

So at the last Philosophy Foosball Club meeting there was discussion about presenting papers next year. This idea soon evolved into an idea of starting a semi-serious journal/collection of the papers which would be created at the end of each semester. Of course foosballers would get free copies. So there is an invite for all of you to write papers. I'm not sure what the requirements should be yet. I guess as long as the paper deals with an issue slightly philosophical in nature. So think about that over the summer.

Also, during this discussion I took the initiative to make a coverpage for the journal/collection. I initially thought of Anselm's maxim "Faith Seeking Understanding" was suitable but Dr. V had his own suggestion. So taking into account his suggestion I have made a rival cover page. Each will compete for supremacy, until a third and more excellent coverpage arises.

But seriously, I would like it if you foosballers gave suggestions of how to make the coverpage better. Or just vote on one of the two. Hope to see a plethora of excellent and stimulating philosophy papers in the fall. Happy studying!

My Initial Cover

Dr. V's Suggestion (I just realized the Latin spelling of philosophy is "philosophie")

Simon Conway Morris and the 2007 Gifford Lectures

2009-03-30T11:27:00.000-05:00

A Christian, a paleontologist, and a critic of intelligent design and atheistic materialism presents this argument:

Evolution shows an eerie predictability, leading to the direct contradiction of the widely-held view that insists on evolution being governed by the contingencies of circumstance
Eyes are not the only example of repeated evolutionary convergence on the same solution. There is evidence for fundamental equivalences of sensory perception and the implication that deeper in the nervous system there is only one mentality. Minds may be not only universal, but also the same.
Evolutionary convergence can give us some very strong hints as to how any aliens will sense their environment, how they will move, how they will evolve agriculture, and intelligence.
Humans have passed a threshold that means we now transcend our animal origins. But birds, whales and humans all converge in song, and far from being the pinnacle of Creation we may be mere juveniles.
The regularities of the physical world, strongly indicate that there must be universal principles of mind. The evidence from evolutionary convergence, not least in terms of intelligence and music, is that the trajectories towards consciousness are embedded in a universe that in some ways is strangely familiar, where personal knowledge (to use Polanyi’s phrase) is valid.
Any attempt to explain, entirely in naturalistic terms, the fact that universe can now understand itself seems doomed to failure. Not only is the Creation open-ended and endlessly fertile, suggesting that in the future science itself faces an infinity of understandings, but so too there is good evidence of realities orthogonal to every-day experiences. Rather than trudging across the arid landscapes skimpily sketched by the materialists, we need to accept the invitation and accompany the Artist that brought Creation into being.

(from Wikipedia)

You can read the entire lecture here.

Some Good Philosophy Podcasts To Listen To

2009-03-07T16:12:00.000-06:00

Want something nice and educational to listen to in the evening? Well check out these podcasts on itunes from our friends across the ocean. Search the name of the podcasts on itunes or just check out their website.

Philosophy Bites

The Philosophy Podcast

Philosophy: The Classics

Enjoy!

Anthony Kenny on Medieval Philosophy

2009-03-06T14:37:00.000-06:00

Alvin Plantinga Debate With Dan Dennett On Science And Religion

2009-02-27T19:23:00.000-06:00

At a recent meeting of the American Philosophical Society Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga debated Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the alleged conflict between science and religion. Apparently the debate was heated. You can download the audio file (the sound quality is not that great) here. What interested me most was an account I of the debate at prosblogion by a philosophy who writes an account sympathetic to Plantinga. The author writes anonomously because they believe their academic career would be at stake if it got out that they were sympathetic to Plantinga. Read the account here.

Here is my bias: Plantinga is awesome. Enough said.

Nietzche Documentary

2009-02-26T16:52:00.000-06:00

Just some preparation for the next philosophy movie night on Nietzche.

Enjoy!

Darwin Day

2009-02-23T10:51:00.000-06:00

Okay this is quite late (I have been quite busy lately), but someone from the Foosball Club suggested I post about Darwin Day. ID advocate Jonathan Wells has written an article in the Washington Times about why he thinks Darwinism is unsupported by the evidence and is an outgrowth of materialist philosophy. He comments on the status of people who want to make February 12th a day dedicated to the legacy and influence of Charles Darwin (the same day as Abraham Lincoln's birthday). I personally would take old Abe, but that's just me.

Unfortunately an article this short can't offer any convincing argument which would adequately persuade another of Wells' position. On the other hand, it does raise questions about the assumptions we have about Darwin's theory which could push us to further questioning, reading, talking to scientists, philosophers, etc. And an issue as controversial as the scientific status of ID and the evidential status of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural is likely to trigger hostile reactions on both sides. So we need to be critical and respectful.

Have fun and enjoy the article.

Open Theism and Its Critics

2009-02-15T22:44:00.000-06:00

A Discussion on Open Theism with John Sanders, John Culp, Richard Rice, David Basinger, Karen Winslow, Clark Pinnock, Alan Rhoda, David Woodruff, Brint Montgomery, Dean Blevins, Dean Zimmerman, Anna Case-Winters, Craig Boyd, Alan Padgett, Jeff Koperski, Robin Collins, Tom Oord, and Richard Rice.

William Lane Craig in Canada

2009-02-08T13:48:00.001-06:00

William Lane Craig was recently in Canada and starred on the Michael Coren Show. Some might complain that the debate was slanted (Michael Coren is a Christian), but it was still a stimulating discussion. Craig's opponent was fairly respectful which made the discussion much more easier to get through. Enjoy!

... and leave some comments!

Want to waste an hour or more?

2009-02-08T13:43:00.000-06:00

I have found many fun BBC documentaries on philosophers. Just go to googlevideo and search "philosophy" and you will be met by a multiplicity of excellent videos. I watched the one Nietzche, Sartre, Heidegger, and one on mathematics and infinity. I highly recommend all these.

William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier on the Resurrection

2009-01-31T14:03:00.001-06:00

Discuss.

If you want a full debate on the resurrection with Richard Carrier, see his debate with Michael Licona here. And if you like reading off a computer screen see Carrier debating Jack O'Connell on the resurrection here.

Science and Religion

2009-01-29T12:49:00.000-06:00

A debate between Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig versus Quentin Smith and Ricahrd Gale.

Rorty On Truth

2009-01-29T12:43:00.000-06:00

Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston

2009-01-28T11:49:00.002-06:00

via Uncommon Descent.

Wittgenstein on Language

2009-01-28T10:02:00.000-06:00

From Derek Jarman's film Wittgenstein (1989).

Pragmatism

2009-01-25T19:20:00.000-06:00

The question for discussion is how does Rorty's view compare with the Christian Worldview? How does the Greek Worldview compare with the Christian Worldview? Can we synthesize Greek-Pragmatic concepts with the Christian Worldview? Or do they have to be rejected?

Dan Dennett On Breaking The Spell

2009-01-24T14:39:00.000-06:00

You will be surprised by some of the things Dennett says.

An Argument From Religious Experience

2009-01-03T21:27:00.000-06:00

Kudos to Victor Reppert at Dangerous Idea (another excellent philosophy blog).

Click the title for the link to the article.

What do we think Philosophy Foosballers? Do religious experiences validate religious beliefs?

For Further Reading:

"Without Evidence or Argument: A Defense of Reformed Epistemology" by Kelly James Clark

"Voodoo Epistemology" by Keith DeRose, an analysis of the famous "Great Pumpkin Objection" to Reformed Epistemology.

"Religious Epistemology" at Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a thorough summary which covers issues pertaining to Reformed Epistemology and Arguments from Religious Experience.

Craig Debates

2009-01-03T21:06:00.001-06:00

So if you haven't picked up on this yet, I'm a pretty big fan of William Lane Craig. I've been reading Reasonable Faith over the Christmas break and I have enjoyed it thoroughly thus far. FYI, Craig has some debates with some prominent atheists (Richard Carrier, Quentin Smith, Christopher Hitchens) coming up. The Philosophy Foosball Club might need to take a field trip.

William Lane Craig vs Christopher DiCarlo: Does God Matter?
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
January 26, 2009

William Lane Craig vs TBA: Does God Exist?
Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
January 27, 2009

William Lane Craig vs Quentin Smith: Does God Exist?
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
January 28, 2009

William Lane Craig vs TBA: Does God Exist?
York University, Toronto, Canada
January 29, 2009

William Lane Craig vs Shabir Ally: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
February 11, 2009

William Lane Craig vs Wes Morriston: Does God Exist?(Focus on Kalam Cosmo. Argument)
Westminster College, Salt Lake City, USA
March 16, 2009

William Lane Craig vs Richard Carrier: Are Moral Facts Evidence of God?
Northwest Missouri State University,Maryville, USA
March 18, 2009

William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens: Does God Exist?
Biola University, La Mirada, USA
April 4, 2009

Is Our Culture Post-Modern?

2008-12-30T20:14:00.000-06:00

William Lane Craig doesn't think so.

ID Debate Anyone?

2008-12-21T01:09:00.000-06:00

This is a gooder. I love Berlinski's opening remarks. Too funny.

I think we will need more posts about Berlinski in the future.

God of the Gaps?

2008-11-26T15:30:00.000-06:00

Hey Philosophy Foosball Bloggers, sorry for the long delay between posts. It is the end of the semester and my work is starting to catch up making me a very busy fellow. Just to let you know, I am working on something, and you can count on me being a more frequent blogger over Christmas break.

But to keep you distracted until then I found this interesting article by the philosopher Alexander Pruss on the God of the Gaps Argument. For those sympathetic to Intelligent Design, the so called God of the Gaps criticism is given to their position frequently. From what I understand it to be in the limited reading I have done, ID claims that certain things of the natural world exhibit improbability and specificity which cannot be explained naturalistically thereby inferring design. Critics of ID say the argument is simply an appeal to the ignorance of our modern day scientific knowledge of the phenomena being explained.

I'm still thinking about these arguments, and I probably will be for a long time before I can come to any conclusion. Until then, let's have a look at the article.

Click Here

Philosophy Foosball scores again!!!

William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins

2008-11-13T17:08:00.000-06:00

William Lane Craig is a philosopher/theologian from Talbot School of Theology in California. Peter Atkins is a chemist from Oxford University. So grab your popcorn, and possibly your headphones (if you have a roommate who doesn't want to hear this stuff at 12 at night), and get ready for a philosophical duel. Without sounding too biased, I'll say one of the debaters dances circles around the other one. Despite that, it is a great debate. Enjoy!

Truth By Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen

2008-10-31T13:13:00.000-05:00

It is my privilege to kick off the Philosophy Foosball Blog by writing its first official entry. The blogmaster—Mark Jensen—wisely suggested that I begin with the question of truth, and so I shall. My hope and prayer is that this blog, under Mark’s guidance, will encourage its readers and contributors to draw closer to Him who is The Truth.

***

“What is truth?” the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus of Nazareth. Pilate, however, didn’t seem interested in waiting for an answer. Without entering into the deep theological/philosophical waters of what Jesus meant by claiming to be the truth—let’s call this capital T truth—it might be helpful first to get clear on the ordinary notion of truth, i.e., truth with a lower case t.

When the contemporary philosopher Francis Beckwith was asked, “What is truth?”, he promptly responded, “Do you want the true answer or the false one?” Beckwith’s answer is both humorous and insightful. The humor in Beckwith’s answer disarms us while the answer’s implication reveals, almost glaringly and all-too-personally, that we already know what truth is. Truth is telling it like it is.

Significantly, the concept of truth that Beckwith helps us to intuit isn’t anything new. (Slight digression and unashamed plug for the Bible: the more I study philosophy, the more I realize that the writer of Ecclesiastes is correct—there really isn’t anything new under the sun, at least not when it comes to the deep questions of philosophy.) For example, Aristotle understood truth similarly when he famously wrote, “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 4, chapter 7).

Read Aristotle’s words again, slowly. Don’t let the fact that none of Aristotle’s words has more than five letters escape your notice, and don’t let this fact take away from the profundity of the words. The commonsensical, garden-variety understanding of truth that Beckwith and Aristotle set out is what philosophers call the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

In other words (longer words I’m afraid), on the correspondence view of truth, truth is a condition or state of affairs that exists when a statement of what is the case is the case. That a claim or proposition is true means that it corresponds with or appropriately represents what is the case in reality. Falsity, on the other hand, is a condition or state of affairs that exists when a statement of what is the case is not the case. And lies are deliberate falsehoods (i.e., lies are falsehoods intentionally presented as truths).

A corollary of the correspondence view of truth is that, as philosopher J. P. Moreland points out, “Reality makes thoughts true or false” (J. P. Moreland, “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn,” in Whatever Happened to Truth?, edited by Andreas Köstenberger [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2005], 77).

Also, as the philosophically-astute theologian Kevin J. Vanhoozer observes, propositional statements are not the only candidates for the correspondence view of truth: “[S]tories too are truth-bearers that enable us both to ‘taste’ and to ‘see,’ or better, to experience as concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. What gets conveyed through stories, then, is not simply the proposition but something of the reality itself.” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Lost in Interpretation? Truth, Scripture, and Hermeneutics,” in Whatever Happened to Truth?, edited by Andreas Köstenberger [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2005], 122). (On the same page Vanhoozer goes on, correctly I believe, to describe God’s Word as “richly propositional.”)

Still, Moreland’s corollary remains: reality makes the stories (and “rich propositions”) true or false. That the stories are true means they correspond to reality (whether that reality is physical, abstract, moral, or spiritual); otherwise they’re false.

Of course, there are other views of truth—e.g., the coherence theory, the pragmatic theory, the redundancy theory, perspectivism—and there are skeptical views concerning our appreciation of truth as knowledge. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to ask of each of the competing views concerning truth: Is it true? Interestingly, this seems to bring us right back to the correspondence view.

So, here is a philosophical question to kick around: Is the correspondence view of truth a foundational philosophical concept? Whatever your answer might be, be sure to ask: Is it true?

Let the Philosophy Foosball Blog begin!