University of Notre Dame | Spring 2015

a publication of the

Hope, Optimism & Transformative Experiences Page 9

Still More Advice to A Social Religious Christians in Philosophy Epistemology? Page 6 CENTERPage FOR15 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 1 KRUEGER

vol. 1, springring 20120155

3 Around the Center Josh Seachris 4 Understanding Atonement Joshua C. Thurow 6 Still More Advice to Christians in Philosophy Thomas Senor 10 An Exercise in Hope: an Interview with Andrew Chignell 11 The Human Experience: an Interview with L. A. Paul

CONTENTS 12 The Atonement Tradition Kathryn Pogin 15 A Social Religious Epistemology? John Greco 16 A Year of Research at the Center Leigh Vicens 19 Self-knowledge in Medieval Mysticism Christina Van Dyke

Contact us: Editor: Paul Blaschko Artist Acknowledgments: Center for Philosophy of Religion Logo: Sami Sumpter Anne Jankowski, University of Notre Dame Design: Omega Printing jankowskiart.com 418 Malloy Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556 About λogoi: Erin Warner The Center for Philosophy of Religion Kathy Reddy White, email: [email protected] is proud to present the second issue circaartsgallery.com tel: 574.631.7339 of λogoi, a publication of high quality web: philreligion.nd.edu articles and interviews about the fi eld Madeline Renedezer of philosophy of religion and the Nathan Winship Smith Follow us!: Center’s activities. Shawn Kruger, shawnkrueger.tumblr.com

2 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION KRUEGER

AROUND THE CENTER

This year has been another exceptional one at the Center. Our staff and fellows, and their projects, keep us on the cutting edge of research in philosophy of religion and analytic theology.

In June 2014, we kicked off two large, REBECCA CHAN SPEAKS WITH ROBERT AUDI interdisciplinary grant projects. The Experience Project is a $4.8 million, three-year joint research initiative with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to explore the nature and implications of transformative experiences, the character of religious and spiritual experiences, and how work on transformative experiences may illumine our understanding of religious and spiritual experiences. Our other project, Hope & Optimism: Conceptual and Empirical Investigations, is a includes stage and play competitions discussion groups where we discuss $4.5 million, three-year joint research that creatively explore hope and their current work, along with that of initiative with Cornell University to optimism in human life. Notre Dame faculty and visiting explore the theoretical, empirical, scholars. A fascinating range of topics and practical dimensions of hope, These projects follow two highly has been discussed this year, optimism, and related states. It also successful grants: the Analytic including transformative experience, Theology Project and Problem of Evil in divine hiddenness, the atonement, Modern and Contemporary Thought. the metaphysics of union with God, The fi rst of these ended in late 2014. mysticism, and the problem of animal It has already resulted in dozens of suff ering. The engaging conversations high-quality publications, and often continue over a pint at our successfully raised awareness of weekly pub nights each Thursday. analytic theology in the fi elds of theology, philosophy and religious On November 14, 2014, our Alvin studies. One way it did so was through Plantinga fellow, Thomas D. Senor, the annual Analytic Theology Lecture. Professor of Philosophy at the The 2014 Lecture was given by Oliver University of Arkansas, delivered the Crisp from Fuller Seminary. Thirteenth Annual Alvin Plantinga Fellow Lecture, titled “Evidentialism Grant projects such as these, along and the Diachronic Nature of

REDDY WHITE, with our annual fellowships, continue Epistemic Evaluation”. to bring top junior and senior scholars to the Center, along with The Center continues to engage the the very best graduate students from undergraduate community at Notre TOUCHDOWN JESUS around the world. This community of Dame though our popular Food for scholars fosters top-notch research, Thought series. Along with a catered as well as friendships that far outlive meal, we bring a speaker to campus to the fellows’ stay. Fellows participate give a lecture followed by Q & A and in our Friday work-in-progress small group discussions. In November

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 3 2014, Notre Dame philosopher Jeff philosophy can illumine theological of opportunities not already on our Speaks presented “Six words you say inquiry. We also added two round- calendar, please send relevant you believe: Some thoughts on the table discussions, one on faith information to: [email protected]. Nicene Creed”. In February, Western and reason, and the other on the Washington’s Hud Hudson presented atonement. In the near future, be on The Seventh Annual Logos Workshop “Felix Culpa!” To see what Food for the lookout for new kinds of video in Philosophical Theology will be held Thought is all about, take a look at content featuring our two large grant on May 7-9 on Notre Dame’s campus. our new promotional video at projects. All Center video content can The theme of this year’s workshop (http://philreligion.nd.edu/calendar/ be found on our video page at is Religious Experience. The aim of food-for-thought/). (http://philreligion.nd.edu/videos/). the workshop is to foster interaction between analytic philosophers and The Center continues to experiment We continue to update our Global theologians on topics of common with and expand our media vision Philosophy of Religion Calendar interest. Registration is required for in an eff ort to bring important topics (available on the Center website) as the conference, but is open to anyone in philosophy of religion and analytic a way of helping those interested in who would like to attend. Please visit theology to a wider audience. Our philosophy of religion stay apprised our website to register and to fi nd archive of interviews with philoso- of upcoming events and opportuni- further details. phers and theologians and roundtable ties in the discipline. We hope that this videos is growing. This year we added consolidated, user-friendly calendar is Thanks to all who have made interviews on topics ranging from a helpful service to the philosophy of 2014-2015 a resounding success Jewish systematic theology to how religion community. If you are aware at the Center!

Understanding Atonement Joshua C. Thurow, UTSA

Central to the Christian message is This is good news because we’ll the atonement—Jesus, God’s son, have good food to eat! I won’t have came to earth to put sinful humans to create something edible from back at rights with, or “at-one with” pasta and wilted, left-over vegetables. God. The letter to the Colossians It’s harder to see how the atonement expresses this concisely: “through is good news. Clearly, it would be REDDY WHITE, [Jesus Christ] God was pleased to good to be reconciled with a holy reconcile to himself all things…by God. But, how does Jesus’s work,

making peace through the blood of especially his crucifi xion, bring BYZANTINE BVM his cross. And you who were once about this reconciliation? I’ve been estranged and hostile in mind, doing privileged to spend this year at the evil deeds, he has now reconciled in Center for Philosophy of Religion the fl eshly body through death, so working on a book that aims to as to present you holy and blameless answer these questions. and irreproachable before him” committed to a particular theory. (Col 1:19-22). The New Testament uses various metaphors for the atonement, and I believe that we can better under- Christians proclaim that the it’s hard to see how to unify them stand the atonement by thinking atonement is very good news. into a single theory. Based on these carefully about an idea that shows Usually, it’s easy to see how good metaphors, various theories of up in the New Testament, especially news is good. After a frantic after- atonement have been developed. in the book of Hebrews: Jesus’s noon of caring for kids, my wife calls Each faces challenges, and almost no death is a sacrifi ce for sin analogously to say she’s bringing dinner home. Christian bodies have offi cially to the sacrifi ces on the Day of

4 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Atonement. When I fi rst looked This collective atonement enables covering over the death due to us for carefully at this, it struck me that the guilty employees to more easily atone our sins. But, his death communicates sacrifi ces are off ered for the sins of for their personal contributions— life in a way that the old sacrifi ces Israel—the community as a whole, many of them need merely repent couldn’t, because his death is rather than individuals. This suggests and commit themselves to the new conquered by resurrection; and the that Jesus’s death is a sacrifi ce for the policies. power of his life is sent out to those sins of a collective—humanity. I’ve who follow him through the Holy developed this core idea in a way Jesus’s work atones for the collective Spirit. Individual sin is atoned for as that, I believe, can help us understand sin of humanity. His teaching and acts long as an individual confesses, how Christ’s work atones. of healing help humanity become repents, and commits to following Christ in the redeemed Here’s the basic idea. human community—the Not just individuals, but Church. humanity as a whole has a “Humanity as a collective... has responsibility to love God guilt that needs to be atoned for. God This theory has several and neighbor. Neither desires that humanity as a group refl ect advantages. It incorporates individuals nor humanity his image into the world. Jesus’s work is positive elements of other have fulfi lled these aimed primarily at dealing with the theories of atonement. For responsibilities, and example, like moral infl uence individuals’ sins contribute collective sin of humanity.” views, it implies that Christ’s to collective sin. Humanity work atones, in part, by as a collective, then, has producing moral transforma- guilt that needs to be atoned for. what it should have been. His death tion in the guilty party. Notably, it God desires that humanity as a is a sacrifi ce—a gift to God of great grounds a robust notion of Christ group refl ect his image into the value on behalf of humanity as a as a representative for humanity who world. Jesus’s work is aimed primarily whole. This sacrifi ce is perhaps off ers atoning work for the group at dealing with the collective sin of best understood as an off ering of while avoiding problems that other humanity (although individual sin, satisfaction to God, who accepts it representational views (e.g., penal too, by extension). because it communicates humanity’s substitution) run into. Plainly, more is commitment to follow God’s way and required to fl esh out and defend this Humanity’s situation is sort because Christ’s blood represents life theory, but I think it shows promise. of like a company guilty of polluting the environment. The company hasn’t REDDY WHITE, fulfi lled its obligations to the community and ought to atone. No

BYZANTINE BVM individual employees are fully responsible for polluting, but many bear guilt for contributing to the company’s polluting. (Perhaps some performed inadequate tests for pollutants; perhaps others approved policies clearly

increasing pollution.) The CREATIVE COMMONS company can atone by, e.g., paying fi nes, cleaning up the environment, and instituting policies that avoid future pollution.

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 5 FEATURE ARTICLE KRUEGER, EVENING, MID-APRIL Still More Advice to Christians in Philosophy by Thomas D. Senor, Alvin Plantinga Fellow 2014-2015

“What would a theist say about places (regardless of their reputation) research but also how we should mind-body dualism?” So began and to not simply accept the research approach our colleagues and our another round of “Ask the Theist” programs of the Powers That Be – peers as we conduct our research. in the Philosophy Department TA was spot on. I will suggest that not only should room at the University of Arizona our faith infl uence what we do as during the 1980s. The game was Anyone familiar with Al’s career philosophers but also how we are played because being a theist made knows that he has exemplifi ed what with philosophers. That is, we ought you something of an anomaly in that he commended. His work in meta- to refl ect on the behavioral norms of department at that time. There was physics and epistemology was indis- our discipline, and when appropriate, genuine curiosity about what impact putably groundbreaking. And what reject them because of our commit- believing in God might have on your he worked on, and the positions he ment to be Christians in philosophy. philosophical perspective. took, were all his own, and refl ected Let me explain what I have in mind. his deep commitment to the tradi- It was around this time that Alvin tional Christian faith. Many of my friends in other Plantinga published his important disciplines are taken aback when paper, “Advice to Christian Philoso- While Plantinga’s advice struck a I describe the structure and culture phers.” I was I tickled that my own chord with me, and has been of the standard APA-type colloquium. doctoral program at the Arizona infl uential in my thinking of how a The fi rst thing they notice is that was one of the few places he name- philosopher should approach the there is a designated commentator. checked as a department at which relationship of her faith to her When they learn that the work of the a Christian would do well to study, vocation, I’d like us to think not only commentator is generally destruc- and the advice he gave – both to about how Christian philosophers tive (in graduate school, we used to study philosophy at the very best might approach their philosophical call commentators “assassins”), the

6 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION E response is usually confusion. Why makes it more likely that your work early on, my confi dence would have would there be an assumption that will be accepted. Progress is made in been wrecked. the paper could be undermined? our discipline because of pointed and direct criticism. The bigger the professional gap This signifi es, I think, an important between the objector and the diff erence in what goes on in That is all true and good, but beside speaker, the worse it is for the former philosophy colloquia as compared the point I aim to make. If you see a to make a potentially devastating professional presentations in many potentially important objection to a objection publically. A full professor other fi elds. A physicist goes to a line of argument, you do the speaker with a signifi cant reputation has professional talk to learn about the a real favor by pointing it out; and no business laying waste to the research of her colleagues, and the more serious the objection is, the paper of a graduate student or furthermore, to learn from the bigger the favor. So by all means, say untenured recent PhD in the context research of her colleagues. In something. But sometimes the Q&A of a presentation. The kind—the philosophy? Not so much. isn’t the best place to do it, at least Christian—approach is to seek out not if you are primarily interested in the speaker after the talk between I don’t mean to exaggerate sessions or at a reception the diff erence between what or even via email, and to we do as philosophers and respectfully present the what our colleagues in other objection, preferably with a “I’m suggesting that Christians in

fi elds do. Surely, we are KRUEGER, suggested fi x. KRUEGER, often motivated by a philosophy make it a priority to desire to learn about what be kind and helpful. In fact, I’d go I’m suggesting that

others are working on, OPEN FIELD NEAR ZEELAND Christians in philosophy EVENING, MID-APRIL a step further and say it is this— and to learn from their the way we treat our students make it a priority to be kind research. But underneath and helpful. In fact, I’d go that motivation often lurks and colleagues—that we should a step further and say it is something considerably strive to make our primary this—the way we treat our less positive. We go to professional identity.” students and colleagues— philosophy talks to poke that we should strive to holes in the speaker’s main make our primary profes- argument, or to show that sional identity. something important was overlooked. We are there as much to helping the speaker produce a I don’t expect everyone to agree instruct as we are to learn—and this better paper. with this as our number one priority. is so even if we don’t take ourselves Some may think that the ultimate to know as much about the subject I have been the recipient of such professional goal is the presentation of the talk than the speaker does. Our kindness. Very early in my career, of an objection-proof argument for hands shoot up when the Q&A starts I was presenting a paper at the theism, or an impenetrable defense because we want to get in our own Central APA. A more experienced, of the rationality of Christianity. But clever objection before someone better-known person had been these goals, while understandable beats us to it. And just to be clear, assigned as my commentator, and and laudable in principle, should when I say “we,” I mean to include although he had his objections to not be our primary focus. This is myself as much as anyone. I know my paper, they were mostly minor so for two reasons. First, they are this story from the inside. and not particularly troubling. The unachievable. I don’t have an discussion had gone well, too. As argument for this other than we’ve Now, of course, subjecting our philo- I was making my way to the next been aiming at them for a long, long sophical arguments and analyses to session, a prominent philosopher time, and have yet to come close to serious scrutiny is a good thing. We sidled up to me and asked to speak accomplishing them. Philosophers do our colleagues a favor by raising to me for a moment. He then pointed are nothing if not adept at fi nding objections and noticing infelicities, out a serious defect in an analysis I reasons to resist conclusions we’d particularly for works-in-progress. had given, a problem at the core of rather not reach. As long as there Dealing with a diffi culty before you my paper. Had I been presented this are folks for whom Christianity is send your paper off to a journal in the Q&A, particularly if it had been not a live option, there will be no

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 7 objection-proof argument for either between conversion and the product in philosophy, such projects are the existence of God or the rationality of research in philosophy of religion. certainly worth pursuing. But, by my of Christianity. lights, the community of Christian As Christians who do philosophy, philosophers can best follow Jesus The other reason that apologetics- we want our colleagues to take us by demonstrating a spirit of charity driven philosophy is misguided is that seriously. How do we accomplish toward our colleagues, and by it presupposes that people reject— that? Do good philosophical work. showing respect and kindness, or are open to—faith for largely But we also want to represent Christ particularly to those in our discipline intellectual reasons. But that is in our work (as we do in our lives who lack power and prestige. neither the teaching of Scripture generally). How do we do that? Well, nor of experience. It is notoriously of course we can work on arguments May they know we are Christians not diffi cult to say what it is that leads for the existence of God and the ratio- by our self-assured pronouncements someone to faith (be it in Christ or in nality of what we believe. While of the intellectual superiority of our dogmatic atheism) but there is I don’t think that should be the worldview, but by our helpfulness almost never a direct connection end-all of the work of Christians and our intellectual humility.

8 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION HOPE OPTIMISM & TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCE

Interviews with Two of the Primary Investigators

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 9 An Exercise in Hope An Interview with Andrew Chignell

Hope & Optimism: Conceptual and Empirical Investigations is a $4.5 million, three-year research initiative at the University of Notre Dame and Cornell University, also funded by The John Templeton Foundation. The project explores the theoretical, empirical, and practical dimensions of hope, optimism, and related states. The project will fund a number of residential and non-residential fellowships, conferences, workshops, a playwriting competition (Hope on Stage), and an amateur video competition (Hope on Screen). The project is led by Samuel Newlands of Notre Dame and Andrew Chignell of Cornell.

What impact did your work in the the sciences. But the philosophers new empirical data. history of philosophy have on this and theologians will contribute project? conceptual skills that could benefi t On the hope side, we are conducting some of the current research research that challenges the AC: Sam Newlands and I initially paradigms in the sciences. standing model of hope in thought of the project as a psychology, the correlation of hope philosophical and theological Are there connections between the with the ‘Agency-pathway model’. endeavor, as Leibniz and Kant did. research on hope and optimism and This model posits that agents balance Leibniz uses the term ‘optimism’ when more ‘mainstream’ philosophical their willingness to sacrifi ce certain describing this world as the best of all problems? goals with the energy expenditure possible worlds, and Kant claims that expected to achieve those goals. one of the three main questions of AC: I think that there is a connection We are hoping to generate new his philosophy is ‘What can we hope between conditions on hope and the longitudinal studies that establish for?’ However, there is a large body of role of reasons in justifying action. new, ground-breaking scales of hope research on optimism in the social I think hope has a second-order and new ways of thinking about hope sciences, particularly psychology. character that links up with reasons that are empirically testable and So we later expanded the project to debates in action theory and moral quantifi able. incorporate these. psychology. Also, careful attention to hope might off er alternatives to Why should people outside of What benefi ts are there in having paradigms in contemporary moral academia care about this project? philosophers, theologians, and psychology, like the view that we can scientists interact on the same project? reduce hope to belief-desire pairs. AC: The words ‘hope’ and ‘optimism’ Hope and optimism also relate to are important to people, and appear AC: Researchers in the sciences philosophy of religion and political often in ordinary contexts. I hope have been interested in developing philosophy. that we can disperse our research measures for optimism, identifying through popular channels and steal physical correlates of optimism, What sorts of research will the grant some rhetoric away from politicians and distinguishing between fund? and marketers who wield these expectation, hope, and various phrases for selfi sh benefi t. We want kinds of optimism—things that AC: Most of the money goes to to help people understand these philosophers and theologians haven’t researchers in psychology, sociology, concepts so that they aren’t really thought about. We’re hoping anthropology, and political science. manipulated by them. that the philosophers and theolo- They are doing experiments to gians will benefi t from interacting establish correlations between with these pre-existing structures in canonical measures of optimism and

If you are interested in hope, optimism, and related states, we encourage you to visit the project website and consider applying for one of our many funding opportunities (http://hopeoptimism.com/).

10 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The Human Experience An Interview with L.A. Paul

The Experience Project is a $4.8 million, three-year research initiative at the University of Notre Dame and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, funded by The John Temple- ton Foundation. The project explores the nature and implications of transformative experi- ences, the character of religious and spiritual experiences, and how work on transforma- tive experiences may illumine our understanding of religious and spiritual experiences. This project will fund research -- in the form of residential and non-residential fellowships, cluster groups, conferences, and workshops -- on the nature of experience in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and religious experience in philosophy of religion, theology, and religious studies.

The project is led by Michael Rea and Samuel Newlands of Notre Dame and L. A. Paul of UNC, Chapel Hill. Harvard psychologist Fiery Cushman and Duke sociologist Steven Vaisey lead the psychology and sociology wings of the project.

Can you describe what a “Transformative Are there any traditional problems you Experience” is, and how your current research expect the project to help resolve? fi ts into the Experience Project? LP: I see the project as raising LP: Big life choices often involve new questions more than solving epistemically transformative experiences, traditional problems. However, the compromising your ability to rationally project defi nitely points to a tension assign values to that future lived experi- between rationality and authenticity, ence. And because of the personally and in this way it connects with transformative nature of the existentialism. epistemically transformative experience, your preferences concerning the new Can you say a bit more about outcomes can also change. As a result, authenticity here, and the connection having the new experience may change with existentialism? how your post-experience self values the outcomes, but before you make LP: Roughly, the idea is that you the choice, many of these important should live your life by choosing to changes are epistemically inaccessible discover who you’ll become through to you. My book develops the general transformative experience, rather form of this argument, tying it to than choosing what you want your questions about agency, rationality, life to be like in any fi ne detail. If you and authenticity, but a very salient choose to have the transformative example is the choice to have one’s experience, to choose rationally, fi rst child. you must prefer to discover whether and how your preferences will How did the Experience Project change. If you choose to avoid the originate? What “sparked” it? transformative experience, to choose rationally, you must prefer not to LP: The collaboration began as discover whether and how your a result of conversations with preferences would have changed. Michael Rea...we discussed the importance of experience and What paradigms or standard views are the role it had in big life choices, likely to be challenged by the research and in understanding and resulting from the project? thinking about religious belief.

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 11 LP: The research challenges the engaged with the issues. It was a Right now, what’s the most exciting assumption that an implicitly surprise, because sometimes it can aspect of this project? behaviorist or “non fi rst personal” be hard to get nonacademics to care stance is suffi cient when assessing about philosophical problems. LP: The possibilities for future work the rationality of individual decisions. in philosophy...are very exciting. I’m It also challenges the notion that we Something about your work has especially interested to see how can construct and follow a coherent, piqued the interest of non-academics. others will engage with the project rationally planned life for ourselves as Why do you think that is? and to see what directions they want agents. to take. I’m also very excited about LP: People care about ideas, and they the interdisciplinary work, particularly Your own work on transformative care about philosophical issues, when the psychology side, since this is an experiences has already found its way they can see how those ideas and opportunity to build a new research into mainstream media outlets. How issues connect to things they value project that draws on several diff erent did this come about? in their own lives. Nonacademics disciplinary perspectives, as opposed see the idea of transformative to being dominated by a traditional LP: It happened by chance—I experience and understand how disciplinary idea or method. co-wrote a blog post about it and it connects to their own major life a ton of places picked up on it and choices.

If you are interested in transformative experience and religious experience, we encourage you to visit the project website and consider applying for one of our many funding opportunities (http://the-experience-project.org/).

The Atonement Tradition: Redemptive or Corruptive? by Kathryn Pogin WARNER, WHEN I SLAY MY DRAGONS

Sociological data indicate that while Protestants have higher than average is the way traditional understandings domestic abuse is not any more divorce rates, and Evangelical of the atonement and redemptive common within the Christian Americans have higher divorce rates suff ering have infl uenced Christian community than it is within the than atheists and agnostics.2 This thought more generally. Conceiving broader cultural context, religious implies that an aversion to procuring of redemption as arising out of Christian women are “more sacrifi cial submission to unjust vulnerable when abused. violence has corrupted the They are less likely to leave, “It’s possible that dominant social shared intellectual resources are more likely to believe the groups exert undue infl uence on the through which we conceptualize abuser’s promise to change shape of the conceptual landscape. ethical conduct, love, and virtue. his violent ways, frequently As the most salient example of espouse reservations about This, in turn, may prevent those who divine love for Christians, how seeking community-based are oppressed from understanding the the atonement is understood resources or shelters for nature of their own oppression.” has signifi cant consequences for battered women, and understanding love broadly. commonly express guilt— that they have failed their families divorce on theological grounds Consider this: and God in not being able to make cannot fully explain Christian [My husband] beats me the marriage work.”1 This diff erence women’s special vulnerability to sometimes. Mostly he is a good is not reducible to belief in Christian abuse. man. But sometimes he becomes theologies of divorce. Research very angry and he hits me. He suggests that conservative I suggest that one contributing factor knocks me down. One time he

12 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION broke my arm and I had to go to think of wrongfully infl icted suff ering done to himself, Christ subverted the the hospital. . . I went to my priest as something that we should endure. intentions of his oppressors, rather twenty years ago. I’ve been In understanding the atonement as than allowing them to achieve their trying to follow his advice. The an exemplar of loving action, and aim. The purpose of crucifi xion was priest said I should rejoice in my Christ’s suff ering as taken on in not simply to kill those who were so suff erings because they bring order to redeem us (rather than a sentenced by the state, but rather to me closer to Jesus. He said, ‘Jesus necessary consequence of some silence those who would fear such a suff ered because he loved us.’ He other redeeming action), we obscure fate. Christ was certainly not silenced. said, ‘If you love Jesus, accept the the import of resistance. We unwit- Perhaps death has no central role in beatings and bear them gladly, as tingly justify submission to violence. what redeems us, nor sacrifi cial love, Jesus bore the cross.’3 To better account for the redemptive but rather an unreserved refusal to nature of the atonement without cooperate with injustice. Stories like this are all too common. encouraging submission to abuse, consider why Rosemary Radford What we can know is dependent Ruether rejects the atonement upon the concepts we have. To a wholesale: large extent, these concepts come from our society. An ancient Greek Suff ering is a factor in the could not know she had contracted liberation process, not as a means a virus—she could not even think of redemption, but as the risk about viruses—because the concept one takes when one struggles to of a virus was not socially available. overcome unjust systems whose Since many concepts we use are benefi ciaries resist change. The social constructions, it’s possible means of redemption is conver- that dominant social groups exert sion, opening up to one another, undue infl uence on the shape of the changing systems of distorted conceptual landscape.4 This, in relations, creating loving and turn, may prevent those who are life-giving communities of people

AGONS oppressed from understanding the here and now, not getting oneself nature of their own oppression. tortured to death. Likewise, religious concepts may be shaped without proper regard for What Ruether believes is reason to the experiences of those who are give up the atonement provides marginalized. fertile ground for constructing a better model. It seems that ‘atonement’ is one such concept. Though the tradition itself Making use of the notion of active, is varied, there is a unifying theme: non-violent resistance, Christ can WINSHIP SMITH, UNTITLED FIGURE the suff ering of Christ is thought of as provide an example of a life central to our redemption. Of course, dedicated to resisting injustice, even atonement theories are not meant to under threat of death. Submission encourage vulnerability to abuse, but to violence on this understanding when redemption is thought of as the would be neither an ideal nor an result of a moral exemplar willingly inconsistency. Christ’s willing submitting to unjust violence so that crucifi xion would itself be an act of others might be saved it is natural to resistance. In allowing violence to be

1 Nancy Nason-Clark, “When Terror Strikes at Home: The Interface Between Religion and Domestic Violence,” Journal for the Scientifi c Study of Religion 43:3 (2004). p. 304 2 Council on Contemporary Families report, “Civil Rights Symposium: Fifty Years of Religious Change: 1964-2014” https://contemporaryfamilies.org/50-years-of-religious-change/ 3 Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker, Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suff ering, and the Search for What Saves Us. (2002) pp. 20-21 4 Cf. Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. (2007)

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 13 MEET THE CENTER: 2014-2015 Center Fellows

Thomas D. Senor Rebecca Chan Alvin Plantinga Fellow Visiting Graduate Fellow Tom Senor is Professor of Philosophy at the Rebecca Chan is a graduate student at the University of Arkansas. He has just fi nished a University of Colorado at Boulder. She is 17-1/2 year run as Department Chair. Prior to writing a dissertation in metaphysics that that, he earned his Ph.D. at the University of focuses on grounding, essence, and modality. Arizona, taught at Arkansas, and was Visiting During her time at the Center, Rebecca plans Assistant Professor at Georgetown University. to complete her dissertation and work on Professor Senor’s research areas are projects in philosophy of religion, which is epistemology and philosophy of religion. her other main area of interest. He is currently working on a book on the epistemology of memory and essays on the nature of faith.

Joshua Thurow Carl Mosser Research Fellow Visiting Scholar Josh Thurow is Assistant Professor of Carl Mosser is Associate Professor of Philosophy at The University of Texas at San Biblical Studies (on leave) at Eastern University Antonio. Professor Thurow’s main areas of in St. Davids, Pennsylvania. His research focuses research are epistemology, metaphysics, on the Second Temple Jewish context of the and the philosophy of religion. Josh will be New Testament, the epistle to the Hebrews, spending this year at the Center working on a Christian doctrines of deifi cation, Mormonism, book in which he uses contemporary work on and select issues within philosophy of religion collective responsibility to develop a theory and constructive Christian theology. of the Christian doctrine of the atonement. T

Christina Van Dyke Connie Svob Research Fellow Research Visitor Christina Van Dyke is Associate Professor of Connie Svob received her doctorate Philosophy at Calvin College, where she has from the University of Alberta in cognitive taught since 2001. She specializes in psychology. Her research has focused on the medieval philosophy (particularly structure and organization of memory for metaphysics, ethics, and the philosophy of transitional and historical events. During her mind) and the philosophy of gender. Her studies, Dr. Svob spent two terms at Oxford research for the 2014-15 academic year University studying theology and philosophy at focuses on Aquinas and happiness in the Blackfriars Hall. During her tenure at the Center afterlife, with particular emphasis on its for Philosophy of Religion, she will explore the implications for embodiment and temporal cognitive processes implicated in religious experience. experiences.

Leigh Vicens

Research Fellow Leigh Vicens is an assistant professor of philosophy at Augustana College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Since completing her dissertation on theological determinism in 2012, Leigh’s research has focused primarily on the metaphysics of mind and action, as well as related issues in philosophy of religion. While here at the Center, she plans to work on questions regarding the nature and extent of human freedom and moral responsibility.

14 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A Social Religious Epistemology? y es John Greco m, In the later part of the 20th century which asks whether and how social monial knowledge does not fi t easily n religious epistemology underwent groups (corporations, nations, into traditional epistemological somewhat of an “externalist turn.” research teams) can themselves be approaches. In this context, many That is, religious epistemology the seat of knowledge, understand- have argued that traditional episte- became less concerned with epis- ing, and other important epistemic mology must be radically amended temic standings that are internally standings. I want to argue that to properly accommodate the role accessible from the point of view religious epistemology should of testimony in our epistemic lives. of the believer, or that carry some follow suit here as well – it is time for In sum, the “social turn” in general internal guarantee, and more inter- a “social turn” in religious epistemol- epistemology has produced an explo- ested in standings associated with ogy. In fact, in many ways religious sion of interesting work, including reliable cognitive practice and proper belief cries out for a social approach. new ideas about the nature of knowl- cognitive functioning. In this respect, This is especially so in the Abrahamic edge in general, as well as the role religious epistemology was following traditions, where the importance of of testimony in the transmission of at epistemology more generally, and the community, testimony, authority, and knowledge within epistemic commu- er results were dramatic. It is no other social phenomena are clearly nities. That there should be fruitful e exaggeration to say that the fi eld central to the life of faith. applications to religious belief seems experienced a kind of renaissance, obvious. Here I will focus on two. cumulating in achievements such as One of the fi rst and most important Alston’s Perceiving God and foci of social epistemology has been First, a prominent issue in the Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief. the epistemology of testimony. epistemology of testimony concerns Granting the extent to which our whether testimonial knowledge can More recently, epistemology has justifi ed beliefs and knowledge be understood in terms of traditional taken a “social turn,” focusing depend on the testimony of others, epistemic categories. “Reductionists” attention, for example, on the ways epistemologists have developed think that the answer is yes, and that an individual’s epistemic an intense interest in the nature of the most common version of standing depends on his or her social testimonial evidence and testimonial reductionism is that testimonial relations and social environment. exchanges. One result is a building knowledge is just a kind of inductive Another concern of social epistemol- consensus (in so far as philosophers knowledge. That is, we know from ogy is the “epistemology of groups,” are capable of consensus) that testi- testimony because we know from

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 15 past observations and appropriate nifi cance of religious diversity. Such generalizations that some speaker discussions proceed from the can be trusted, at least in such-and perspective of a neutral observer, f such circumstances, at least on such- and ask what one should make of the and-such topic. “Anti-reductionists” many and confl icting claims made by argue that this way of thinking about various religious traditions. For testimonial knowledge is wrong- example, what should we make of the headed. Rather, the epistemic fact that diff erent traditions have dif- f signifi cance of testimony is special, “...In many ways religious belief ferent prophets, diff erent scriptures, requiring its own kind of epistemo- cries out for a social approach. and diff erent teachings? Note that, logical treatment. To “reduce” This is especially so in the from this perspective, these testimonial evidence and knowledge Abrahamic traditions, where competing testimonies from diff erent to inductive evidence and knowledge the importance of community, traditions are treated as evidentially is to miss the special role that on a par. Each constitutes a bit of testimony, authority, and other testimony plays in our epistemic lives. data, which should be accommo- social phenomena are clearly dated by a neutral observer in a best A second prominent issue in the central to the life of faith.” explanation of religious diversity. epistemology of testimony concerns whether testimony It is fair to say, I believe, that tradi- But suppose that anti-reductionism is “generates” knowledge or “transmits” tional religious epistemology has right, and that therefore testimonial f it. The idea behind the generation largely assumed a reductionist evidence cannot be evaluated accord- thesis is that testimony is another understanding of testimony, and ing to the same criteria as inductive source of knowledge, much in the has largely thought of testimony as evidence. In that case, Hume’s way that perception and reason are a source of knowledge generation. argument does not get off the sources. The idea behind the trans- Those assumptions are on display, ground. Or suppose that the function mission thesis is that testimony serves for example, in Hume’s discussion of of testimony is to transmit knowl- f a diff erent role in our “knowledge miracles, and his claim that our testi- edge within an epistemic community, economy.” Rather than generating or monial evidence for a miracle’s having rather than to generate it as an exter- producing knowledge, the role of occurred is always weaker than our nal source. In that case, the perspec- testimony is to transmit or distribute non-testimonial evidence that it has tive of our neutral observer misses it. The issues here are potentially not. Hume’s argument for that claim the epistemological signifi cance of related to the debate between assumes that he is comparing apples testimony given within a tradition. reductionism and anti-reductionism. to apples. That is, it assumes that v Thus it might be that testimonial testimonial evidence is just a species Of course, I have done nothing here f knowledge is special and irreducible of inductive evidence, and therefore to argue in favor of anti-reductionism precisely because of its special role can be evaluated as such. Critics or a transmission view. The point, f in transmission: one gets testimonial of Hume’s argument seem to share rather, is that these are issues of knowledge not by generating it for these assumptions, and responses to central relevance to religious episte- oneself, but by having it transmit- Hume are framed accordingly. mology. And once these issues are f ted to one by someone who already Similar assumptions are on display in put on the table, religious epistemol- knows. many discussions regarding the sig- ogy cannot go on in the same way.

A Year of Research at the Center Leigh Vicens

I have been working on a number of sibility. I fi rst got interested in these logical determinists for preferring projects at the Center for Philosophy issues when writing a dissertation on their view of divine providence, as of Religion related to the issues of theological determinism, in which I well as ways in which they dealt with human freedom and moral respon- examined reasons off ered by theo- objections to their view. In the end,

16 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION I became concerned that theologi- then agent-causes cannot be irreduc- cal determinism diminished human ible in this way. freedom and responsibility for sin, thereby aggravating the problem of But do we have reason for thinking evil. I concluded that we should that such a conception of laws is prefer views of divine providence correct? Some philosophers think that allowed for libertarian human that we are at least prima facie freedom. Since completing my Ph.D., justifi ed in believing that we have free I have become more interested in will, on the basis of either our moral empirical questions about the nature attitudes and practices, or the “sense” JANKOWSKI, and scope of human freedom. While of freedom we sometimes have when still convinced that freedom and we deliberate, decide, or act. If they

moral responsibility are incompatible are right, and if our freedom is in- MORNING STAR 3 - DETAIL with both theological and natural compatible with a particular way the determinism, I have begun to wonder world might be, then we have at least what other factors, besides the prima facie justifi cation for absence of determinism, are believing that the world is not that necessary for such freedom, and way. In another project, I consider what evidence we have that these the claim that we have some kind factors obtain. of introspective evidence of our free will. I argue that, while we may question that is raised for me One paper I am currently working on have a “sense” of our own freedom, regards the consonance or argues that a particular conception this sense is not phenomenological, dissonance between diff erence of probabilistic laws of nature that but doxastic; in other words, it is not kinds of considerations on this issue. some libertarians hold rules out something “given” to us in our experi- Suppose, for instance, that we lack free will in the same way that ence, but either a judgment we make empirical grounds for concluding determinism does. According to the or a belief we presuppose when we that we have free will, but that we conception I have in mind, the laws act. Here is one reason for thinking have theological grounds for are both universal, in the sense that this: it seems that we cannot concluding that we are free. Where they fi x the conditional probabilities experience ourselves as free unless does that leave us? Since I am no of every event, and also causal, in we simultaneously presuppose or advocate of a theology that affi rms the sense that they are true in judge that we are. Contrast this with seemingly contradictory statements, virtue of the causal powers of the agency. As Tim Bayne has pointed such dissonance between my fundamental microphysical out, the experience of acting can tentative theological and empirical constituents of reality. My reason come apart from, and indeed be at conclusions will lead me to reconsider for thinking that such laws would odds with, judgments about whether both. So, on the one hand, I have rule out free will has to do with one is acting. However, it seems to recently returned to my work on another factor that I think is required me that there cannot be such a theological determinism, which has for freedom: agent-causation, or the discrepancy between one’s allowed me to think again about power of an agent, qua substance, experiences of acting freely and one’s responses that determinists might to bring about certain eff ects. While judgments about one’s free agency. make to the problem of evil, and how a number of libertarians have This suggests that there may not be, they measure up against those that argued that such a power is essen- distinct from one’s presuppositions libertarians employ. On the other tial to free agency, I think that some or judgments, an experience of one’s hand, I have begun to reconsider of them have ignored the following own freedom, akin to the experience what I take to be near philosophical consequence of this line of reasoning: of one’s agency. So, if there is support orthodoxy on the subject of the in order for agent-causation to be a for the claim that we have free will, character and scope of laws of real, irreducible feature of reality, the it must come from somewhere other nature, which I think rules out agent herself must be able to aff ect than introspection. libertarian freedom. Obviously, I have the probability that certain events my work cut out for me this year, and occur. But if the probability of every As I continue to study the evidence my research at the Center may well event occurring is already fi xed by the we have for the existence of human turn into a life-long project of sorting microphysical constituents of reality, freedom and responsibility, one these issues out.

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 17 S MEET THE CENTER: 2014-2015 Center Staff C Paul Blaschko

Graduate Student Research Assistant

Tobias Flattery

Graduate Student Research Assistant

Samuel Newlands

Director of Research; William J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Associate Professor of Philosophy

Michael Rea

Director; Professor of Philosophy

Joshua Seachris

Program Director

Joyce Zurawski

Administrative Assistant

James Kintz

Visiting Graduate Assistant

Samuel Murray

Visiting Graduate Assistant

Center Announcements • Logos 2015: Religious Experience will be streamed live May 7-9. Registration to stream the event is now open. Visit our website for more details. • The Center’s two large grant projects Hope & Optimism and Transformative Experience are underway, you can fi nd more information on our website • New video content online at: philreligion.nd.edu/videos • Access our continually updated Global Philosophy of Religion Calendar at our website • Deadline to Apply for Center Fellowships will be February of 2016 For more information on these and other Center announcements visit us online at: philreligion.nd.edu

18 | spring 2015 | CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Self-Knowledge in Medieval Mysticism

Christina Van Dyke, Calvin College RENEDEZER, SHATTERED SPACE

Self-knowledge was a persistent physical and emotional mystic become free. Emphasizing the theme in medieval mysticism. The experiences as intrinsically valuable. Incarnation, the aff ective tradition Christian Latin mystics of the 13th to relies on the belief that if the 15th centuries saw union with the The apophatic tradition emerges supremely good God took on fl esh, divine as our ultimate goal; in this in the Middle Ages through the then fl esh cannot be inherently evil. context, the oracle at Delphi’s neoplatonic works of pseudo- Physical and emotional experiences injunction to ‘know thyself’ captured Dionysius and John Scottus Eriugena, (e.g., seeing visions, not needing food the need for both personal knowl- culminating in the late 13th century or drink for long periods, and ecstatic edge prior to such union and (since with the work of the Dominican joy or sorrow) constitute an important mystic union is fl eeting in this life) Meister Eckhart, and continuing into part of mystic union in this tradition. continued introspection afterwards. the early Renaissance with John of Such phenomena are understood, not the Cross and Nicholas of Cusa. as distractions, but as valuable unitive Mysticism in the Middle Ages was experiences. not a uniform movement, and its Apophatic mysticism characterizes forms changed substantially from true union with the divine as anti- The Eucharist assumes central impor- the 11th to the 15th centuries. Two experiential; it understands the tance in mystic experiences within main strains emerged: the ‘apo- visions of light, smells of incense, etc., this tradition, demonstrating the phatic’ and ‘aff ective’ traditions. Both central in the lives of many mystics as belief that humans are most closely portray knowledge of the self (via distractions from the ultimate goal of joined with Christ’s divinity through experience and introspection) as self-abnegation. Although knowledge his corporeity. Aff ective mystics some- important preparation for union with of self was seen as useful for both times saw fl esh or tasted honey in the God, but they give self-knowledge recognizing sinful self-orientation and Eucharistic wafer, and priests might diff erent functions—they diverge seeing God’s image in us, the ultimate hold up an infant in place of the host regarding the ideal outcome of such goal is to move beyond experience of at the moment of transubstantiation. knowledge. The apophatic tradition self as anything separate from God. In aff ective mysticism, these experi- stresses moving past self-knowledge The more Neoplatonic mystics ences were understood as a means of to self-forgetting (and even loss of self, stressed the intellect’s role in both overcoming the self-alienation or self-abnegation); for the aff ective self-knowledge and self-abnegation. common to fallen humanity. Conceiv- tradition, union with the divine is a Others in the apophatic tradition, ing of oneself in purely spiritual or radical self-fulfi llment. however—particularly in the 14th mental terms is alienating to crea- and 15th centuries—focus on the role tures whose primary interaction with Originally a minority view, the of the will. Marguerite Porete, burnt reality is physical; knowing oneself apophatic tradition became at the stake in 1310, argued that our as a bodily subject is important for dominant in the early 20th century, fi nal goal is the annihilation of the grasping one’s identity as God’s child. when scholars argued that universal conscious self through the surrender and absolute mystic experiences were of our will to God’s. Similar sentiments The distinction between aff ective and the only ‘genuine’ ones. Accounts appear in 14th century English works. apophatic mysticism was not recog- describing sensory or emotional True union with God requires nized at the time; much medieval phenomenology were discounted, relinquishing attachment to self on mystical literature combines apophat- and aff ective mysticism gradually every level: cognitive, volitional, ic and aff ective elements. It proves disappeared; today, medieval emotional, and physical. useful, though, for correcting the mysticism is usually associated with modern impression that mysticism eschewing attachment to self or Aff ective mysticism, in contrast, involves transcending attachment to body. It’s an important corrective, became prominent in the later Middle the self. Rather than merely a stage then, to realize that aff ective Ages as a reaction to the (heretical on the path towards self-less union, mysticism was a robust, widespread gnostic) perception that materiality aff ective mystic experiences are also tradition that emphasized the passion was inherently negative and a prison a radical fulfi llment of the embodied of the incarnate Christ and portrayed from which our souls strive to self in communion with God.

CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION | spring 2015 | 19 Nonprofi t Organization U.S. Postage PAID Notre Dame, IN Permit No. 10

418 Malloy Hall Notre Dame, IN 46556