Wednesday, February 22, 2006
I regret making a post out of this, but it may be the only way for me to get an answer: Where is my January 2006 issue of Faith & Philosophy?!? I've read similar inquiries at other blogs, but never an informed response. I've emailed SCP, but gotten no response. Does anyone know the truth???
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Breaking Dennett's Spell?
Leon Wieseltier has given a sharp review of Daniel Dennett's latest book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon over here at the New York Times book review. I really want to get my hands on this book. If Wieseltier is right, it looks like Dennett has taken the easy road once again: Evaluate religion not by examining its truth claims, but (taking a page from Freud) by pointing out religion's allegedly disreputable origin--which of course for Dennett is purely naturalistic.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
New Member of Summa Philosophiae
As you may have noticed we have a new contributor to the blog here. Please welcome our newest member and fellow blogger Clint. Clint enjoys figure skating, shaving, and taking long walks on the beach. A speculative fellow he is, pondering such questions as, "Are there any objects that do not exist?" and "Is the cat really on the mat?" It is even said that he was so enraptured in thought once that he spent nearly 48 hrs pondering whether Hume himself should have been consigned to the flames.
Original Sin and Christian Philosophy Part III
Was Sin Accidental? A metaphysician seeks to understand the nature of reality. What is it that constitutes a table, a Coca-Cola, a roll of toilet paper, etc.. For instance, a roll of toilet paper as a substance might be said to have the properties of whiteness, roundness and softness (if it is Charmin). The toilet paper is a substance which has certain properties. A substance is simply something that can have properties but that cannot be had by any other thing. For instance, the hair on my head has the properties of softness, brownness and possibly many others. My hair, however, cannot be had by anything else, thus it is not a property. This is not to be confused with the property of being my hair, which can be had. However, my hair may not always possess the property of brownness or even softness. One day it may possess the property of grayness or whiteness, but it will always possess the property of being hair, whatever that may look like. Note that this model seems to indicate that there are different types of properties. This sort of study has had much practical application for the study of original sin and its relation to the nature of Christ. Thomas V. Morris, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, provides an ingenious metaphysical theory for navigating around the problem of original sin for Christ. In his book, The Logic of God Incarnate, Morris articulates the differences between what many philosophers have termed essential properties and accidental properties. Yet what are the differences between these properties and what, if any, are the practical implications for the nature of Christ? The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (CDP) defines them as following: Essential property- A property is essential to an entity if, necessarily, the entity cannot exist without being an instance of the property (eg. Being a number is an essential property of nine) . Accidental property- A property is accidental to an individual if it is possible for the individual to exist without being an instance of the property (eg. being the number of planets is an accidental property of nine). Morris believes that sin is an accidental not an essential property of humanity. Therefore, Christ could have all the essential properties of humanity without being tainted by sin. It is in my opinion that Morris is onto something here. Understanding sin as an accidental property would seem to correlate to Adam and Eve both being without sin until they exercised their will to disobey God. It was upon disobedience that sin was predicated, instantiated, or had by Adam and Eve as an accidental property, one that is common to all humanity but is not essential to being human (as is the case with Christ). How does this theory hold up under philosophical scrutiny? Does anyone have any thoughts as to what might be good or bad about this theory? In conclusion, much could be said concerning exactly what the essential properties of God are and exactly how they cohere with the essential properties of man. However, I have not pursued this since the recent topics (of this site) have been addressing the “original sin” of man. As always, for those of you brave enough to venture there…please do so!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Leftow On Divine Ideas
Brian Leftow recently assumed Swinburne's chair as the the Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford University--which is no small feat! I have been trying to find information on his Divine Ideas for a while now. As far as I can determine, this book has been dubbed"Forthcoming" for the past 10 years. Where is it? I keep finding references to it everywhere. Plantinga actually cites it in Christian Philosophy At the End of the 20th Century (1995) as already published by Ithaca: Cornell Press 1994, but the book is nowhere to be found. Any Leftow readers out there with information? UPDATE (2/14/06): I emailed Leftow and he sent me a pretty prompt response. He's been working on a manuscript of Divine Ideas for a long time now but he keeps changing some of his ideas and views. He's basically done with the thing now and the book should be out in print early next year.