A Level Philosophy, Religion and Ethics Reading List
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Atheism AO2 Handout Part 1
Philosophy Of Religion / Atheism AO2 Atheism AO2 Handout Part 1 New Atheism successfully shows the incompatibility of science and religion. Evaluate this view. 1. New Atheists seem to argue that scientific theories are based only on evidence, whilst religion runs away from evidence. The claim is that atheism is rational and scientific while religion is irrational and superstitious. Faith is not an element of science since evidence for a correct conviction compels us to accept its truth. As Dawkins says “Faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something – it doesn’t matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous…” However, Alister McGrath points out that such a view “fails to make the critical distinction between the ‘total absence of supporting evidence’ and the ‘absence of totally supporting evidence’.” It is true that some facts about the world have been proved (e.g. the chemical formula for water) but the bigger scientific questions such as is there a Grand Unified Theory that explains everything rely on answers based on the best evidence available but they are not certainties. In future years they may well change as new evidence is considered. As Gauch concluded “Science rests on faith”. Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion” does argue that the existence of God is a testable hypothesis and concludes that the hypothesis is falsifiable. Therefore the hypothesis is open to the scientific method. So here is a New Atheist proponent arguing that that the existence of God is a meaningful hypothesis. -
Science, Reason and Religion 19.09.12 Professor Keith WARD Introduction: Revd Scott S
OPening ADDReSS: Science, ReASOn AnD ReligiOn 19.09.12 PROfeSSOR Keith WARD introduction: Revd Scott S. McKenna Good evening. Welcome to Mayfield Salisbury Parish Church. This is the first of five events which make up our Festival of Science, Reason and Religion. When we wrote to each of our invited guests, we said: In our view, the Church has never fully or adequately responded to the 'challenges' of science or reason and, in the present day, the Church is perceived to be anti-intellectual, superstitious, bigoted and homophobic, at times not without justification. We said: We are spiritual seekers after truth and recognise that there may be more than one truth. Our festival will be an honest, intellectually rigorous and, we hope, enjoyable exploration about the nature of reality and what it means to be human. This evening’s opening address is being delivered by Keith Ward. We were delighted when Keith accepted our invitation. Keith Ward is a philosopher, theologian and a priest in the Church of England. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and has over 25 books to his name. Keith graduated from the University of Wales. Through the 60s and 70s, he lectured in Logic at Glasgow University, then Philosophy at St Andrews. He has also lectured at King’s College London and Trinity Hall Cambridge. Finally, in 1991, Keith was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, a post he held for 13 years. In his retirement, if I may put it that way, he has written much and lectured across the world, from Calcutta to Auckland and Philadelphia to Bellagio. -
The Last Testament Don Cupitt
The Last Testament Don Cupitt Filter-tipped Noah unshaded, his streamer apocopating globes cracking. Superserviceable Barn smarts therefore. Legitimate Howard sometimes edulcorated his wabblers absorbedly and begird so functionally! Legality and morality are not synonymous. Transcendence demands acknowledgement of the essential unknowability of God, that is not the same as saying we can know God naturally in negative terms. Flipkart Assured is the seal of Quality and Reliability. Misunderstand religion a last testament book challenges the challenge of life on comfortable uk society should we should resign his books! The well had always been contaminated. Hebrews would demonstrably have assented in precisely the same sense. The facts of the resurrection remain forever unproveable but that does not mean that it is fiction. Books you really just a utopian teacher jesus than the trinity. It then shapes our thought patterns and influences how we experience reality. The life of the Buddha, in many more ways that I have ever realised, is parallel with that of Jesus, which was a life of terrible suffering and persecution and marginalisation. And that was the first thing that gave me the idea that it might be possible for humans to live in a nunc stans like God. Distinction between jesus died, last testament will have a priori practical application can free from augustine, last testament don cupitt. Freeing the Faith, Contact, Vol. Traditional christianity is a last world is better known as poetically true. We are told the women left in fear, and told no one of these things. Eventually I was saying that God does not determine and cannot be thought as determining the spiritual life from outside, for God is altogether unspecifiable. -
Numenews Winter 2014
WINTER 2014 Vol. 11, No. 2 Remembering Ian Barbour: Mentor, Colleague, Friend and Founder of Carleton’s Religion Department as Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. He donated most of the money to support the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. His broadly celebrated book, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (2000) synthesized and communicated much of his life work to a broader audience beyond the academy. His four models for understanding the ways science and religion have been brought in relation—conflict, independence, dialogue, integration—became staples for educators and individuals trying to engage productively in questions about evolution and faith, the impact of technology on today’s world, and the ethical resources (gleaned from both science and religion) for addressing global problems related to the environment, genetic engineering, nuclear conflict, and social justice. Though he was held in high regard among so many leading intellectuals and in many scholarly and religious associations across the In December, the religion department lost its cherished country and abroad, Ian was known for his gentle, humble demeanor, colleague, mentor, friend, and founder, Ian Barbour, Winifred and for his devotion to his local communities in Northfield, where he and Atherton Bean Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, remained active in the First United Church of Christ, and also taught and Society, who touched the lives of so many people at and well regularly in the Cannon Valley Elder Collegium at the Northfield Senior beyond Carleton. He died on Christmas Eve at the age of 90. -
Appropriating Apocalyptic: Paul Ricoeur's
APPROPRIATING APOCALYPTIC: PAUL RICOEUR’S HERMENEUTICS AND THE DISCOURSE OF MARK 13 by Peter C. de Vries BA, Pennsylvania State University, 1985 MDiv, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1988 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2010 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Peter C. de Vries It was defended on April 2, 2010 and approved by Dale Allison, Professor, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Alexander Orbach, Associate Professor, Religious Studies Adam Shear, Associate Professor, Religious Studies George Taylor, Professor, School of Law Dissertation Advisor: S. Anthony (Tony) Edwards, Associate Professor, Religious Studies ii Copyright © by Peter C. de Vries 2010 iii APPROPRIATING APOCALYPTIC: PAUL RICOEUR’S HERMENEUTICS AND THE DISCOURSE OF MARK 13 Peter C. de Vries, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2010 Mark 13 predicts that certain events will occur literally within the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries, and today’s reader recognizes that some of these events have not taken place. The reader therefore appropriates the text as a false configuration of the world because it describes the world differently from how it is. However, the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur enables a reader to appropriate the text as a presentation of truth. His argument for textual autonomy supports the contention that a text’s meaning is not limited to what the author intended and the original readers perceived. In new reading contexts, the meaning that comes from the text itself creates an evocative dialectic between the reader’s lived world and the world description of the text. -
A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J
Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal Issue 27 Article 14 Winter 1-1-2004 A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J. Davis Brown University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmnj Part of the Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Commons, Mathematics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Philip J. (2004) "A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology," Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal: Iss. 27, Article 14. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmnj/vol1/iss27/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Claremont at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J. Davis "Such a really remarkable discovery. I wanted your opinion on it. You know the formula m over naught equals infinity, m being any positive number? [m/0 = ]. Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by naught? In which case you have m equals infinity times naught [m = x 0]. That is to say, a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the Universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?" Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point, (1928), Chapter XI. I Introduction We are living in a mathematical age. Our lives, from the personal to the communal, from the communal to the international, from the biological and physical to the economic and even to the ethical, are increasingly mathematicized. -
Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology
Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology Thomas Jay Oord and Wm. Andrew Schwartz Open and relational theologies have a particular affinity for panentheism and panexperientialism (panpsychism). These theologies come in various forms, however. And scholars propose various forms of panentheism and panexperi- entialism. Diversity reigns. We begin this essay by describing open and relational theology. We also describe panentheism and panexperientialism, broadly understood. We note reasons why open and relational theists would be attracted to each. And we argue that panentheism and panexperientialism complement one another, al- though a person could be attracted only to one. Much of the essay argues for one form of open and relational theology we think makes the best sense overall. This form includes belief in a personal/ relational God, makes distinctions between God and creatures, affirms God ev- erlastingly creates (thereby denying creatio ex nihilo), and offers a solution to the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil. Adopting panexperientialism and panentheism offers ways to overcome theoretical problems in contemporary thought, while arguably motivating adherents of the view to love (promote overall well-being). 1. Open and Relational Theology The label »open and relational theology« serves as an umbrella designation for a family of theologies.1 This family shares at least two core convictions. The »open« aspect refers to the idea that both creatures and God experience the ongoingness of time. Consequently, both God and creatures face an open, yet to be determined future. Because the future is not actual, it is inherently 1 These include theologies using labels such as open theism, process theism, various relational theologies, some Wesleyan theologies, some feminist theologies, some ecological theologies, some Arminian theologies, some postcolonial theologies, and more. -
Alister Mcgrath's Anti-Mind-Body Dualism: Neuroscientific and Philosophical Quandaries for Christian Physicalism Brandon Rickabaugh* I
TRINJ40NS (2019) 215-240 ALISTER MCGRATH'S ANTI-MIND-BODY DUALISM: NEUROSCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL QUANDARIES FOR CHRISTIAN PHYSICALISM BRANDON RICKABAUGH* I. INTRODUCTION Here is a staggering truth: the ontology of the human person currently embraced by the most vocal Christian scholars working on this issue is a view that almost no Christians thought plausible only 100 years ago. Until recently, the dominant view among Christian thinkers has been various forms of mind-body dualism (hereafter, dualism), according to which the human person comprises body and soul.1 In stark disagreement, many contemporary Christian scholars vigorously advance antidualism and defend physicalism (reductive or nonreductive), understanding the human person as fundamentally physical.2 These Christian physicalists proffer the strong impression of a uniform rejection of dualism across the neuroscientific, theological, and philosophical communities, as if dualism has been defeated, just as phlogiston was in in the 1770s. Here is another staggering truth: this certain-defeat-of-dualism narrative is demonstrably false. There is, in fact, a growing resurgence of dualism in philosophy. The recent Blackwell Companion Brandon Rickabaugh is a PhD candidate in the Department of Philosophy at Baylor University. This paper won the 2018-2019 Harold O. J. Brown Award for Student Scholarship. aSee Paul Gavarilyuk, "The Incorporeality of the Soul in Patristic Thought," in Christian Physicalism? Philosophical Theological Criticisms, ed. Keith Loftin and Joshua Farris (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017), 1-26; and Thomas Atkinson, "Christian Physicalism: Against the Medieval Divines," in Loftin and Farris, Christian Physicalism?, 27-42. This isn't to say that dualism was the only view, as there is a tiny minority of Christian physicalists in the history of the church. -
Is "Nontheist Quakerism" a Contradiction of Terms?
Quaker Religious Thought Volume 118 Article 2 1-1-2012 Is "Nontheist Quakerism" a Contradiction of Terms? Paul Anderson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt Part of the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Anderson, Paul (2012) "Is "Nontheist Quakerism" a Contradiction of Terms?," Quaker Religious Thought: Vol. 118 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt/vol118/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quaker Religious Thought by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IS “NONTHEIST QUAKERISM” A CONTRADICTION OF TERMS? Paul anderson s the term “Nontheist Friends” a contradiction of terms? On one Ihand, Friends have been free-thinking and open theologically, so liberal Friends have tended to welcome almost any nonconventional trend among their members. As a result, atheists and nontheists have felt a welcome among them, and some Friends in Britain and Friends General Conference have recently explored alternatives to theism. On the other hand, what does it mean to be a “Quaker”—even among liberal Friends? Can an atheist claim with integrity to be a “birthright Friend” if one has abandoned faith in the God, when the historic heart and soul of the Quaker movement has diminished all else in service to a dynamic relationship with the Living God? And, can a true nontheist claim to be a “convinced Friend” if one declares being unconvinced of God’s truth? On the surface it appears that one cannot have it both ways. -
The Lady Margaret's Professorship of Divinity
THE LADY MARGARET’S PROFESSORSHIP OF DIVINITY FACULTY OF DIVINITY 1 The Professorship Background The Lady Margaret’s Professorship (founded in 1502) is the oldest endowed chair in the University of Cambridge and one of four endowed chairs in the Faculty of Divinity. The last four holders, Charles F. D. Moule, Morna Hooker, Graham Stanton, and Judith Lieu have all been international leaders in the field of New Testament studies. The Faculty Board sees continued strength in this area as central for the future strategy of the Faculty. Selection Criteria Candidates will be considered for the Professorship on the basis of the following selection criteria, which they should address in their application. An outstanding research record of international stature in the field of New Testament studies. The vision, leadership experience and enthusiasm to build on current strengths in maintaining and developing a leading research presence, and an established record in attracting research grant support to further this development. The ability to further the academic planning and strategic development of New Testament studies in the University (especially through fostering links with colleagues in the Department of Classics and the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies) and, where appropriate, more widely within the UK. The ability to manage and interact effectively with staff and students at all levels. An enthusiastic commitment to the recruitment, training and mentoring of the next generation of researchers, including undergraduates, research students, and postdoctoral research fellows Candidates will hold a PhD or equivalent postgraduate qualification. Lady Margaret’s Professorship of Divinity Page 1 of 6 2 The Faculty of Divinity Full details of the work of the Faculty, including the Tripos (for undergraduates) and the M.Phil. -
Appreciating Faith and Culture in an Age of Scientific Reasoning. On
Appreciating Faith And Culture In An Age Of Scientific Reasoning. On Constructive-Critical Realism „Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.“ 1 1. The Common Search For Truth Theology does not always regard the development of science as relevant for its argumentation. Yet outside the walls of church communities, scientific –especially evolutionary – thinking dominates the everyday philosophies of many people. Also for the scientists themselves, science is often thought to be more than just a technical approach to establish empirical observations that work. Although interpretations may vary, what generally is at stake since the case of Galilei is the question of truth, of revealing the way the world we live in really is. Should not at least a theology of creation regard what science finds out about this world? On the one hand it may make sense, to think theology through based on what it can learn from science. The so-called “science and religion” discourse attempts at that. One the other hand, one must show why faith and culture are still relevant in a world dominated by scientific reasoning. I am convinced, this second aspect is not sufficiently covered by how the science and religion discourse is mostly performed in theology until today. Faith does play a crucial role, but culture not so much. For instance, former professor of particle physics (and later Anglican priest) John Polkinghorne speaks of both science and theology as truth-seeking communities. From a philosophical point of view, this presents a metaphysical interpretation of science as a verisimilitudinous endeavor, approaching the one world`s reality with our scientific efforts. -
Griset Lecturer: Keith Ward Spring 2016 (1 Unit)
Religion 329: “Science and Religion: the Great Debate” Griset Lecturer: Keith Ward Spring 2016 (1 unit) Class Meeting Times: Tuesday February 23 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Wednesday February 24 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Monday, February 29 7:00 (Public Lecture: Christ and the Cosmos—Attendance Mandatory) Tuesday March 1 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Wednesday March 2 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Monday March 7 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Tuesday March 8 4:00‐6:00 (Lecture and Discussion) Units of Study: 1. Can there be a debate? Has there really been a war between science and religion? Can we define ‘science’ or ‘religion’, anyway? Has science killed both religion and philosophy, as Stephen Hawking has claimed? 2. How the universe began. Scientific and religious accounts of the origin of the universe. What do Christians mean by ‘creation’? Does this compete with modern cosmology? 3. How the universe will end. The scientific revolution in quantum physics. Can there be purpose in a scientifically understood universe? Is the universe pointless? 4. Is there a problem with evolution? How the theory of evolution began as a religious doctrine, why it came to be seen as anti‐religious, and why it is still such a contentious theory. 5. Has science eliminated miracles? Are there absolute laws of nature? Is science on the way to explaining everything? 6. The ‘hard problem’. Why does consciousness exist, and how does it relate to matter? Can rational animals (i.e.humans) survive death? These sessions will be a combination of lecture and discussion.