DOCSLIB.ORG

Faith, Scepticism and Personal Identity : a Festschrift for Terence Penelhum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Faith, Scepticism and Personal Identity : a Festschrift for Terence Penelhum University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Arts Arts Research & Publications 1994 Faith, scepticism and personal identity : a festschrift for Terence Penelhum Penelhum, Terence 1929 University of Calgary Press http://hdl.handle.net/1880/43509 book Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca Biographical Note Terence Michael Penelhum was born in Bradford-on-Avon, England, and educated at Weymouth Grammar School and Edinburgh University, where he graduated in 1950 with first class honours in philosophy. He was Alexander Campbell Fraser Scholar at Oriel College, Oxford, where he obtained the B.Phil. in 1952. For the next year he was English-Speaking Union Fellow at Yale University. He taught philosophy at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, for ten years from 1953, and then at the University of Calgary, where he was head of department from 1964–70 and dean of arts and science from 1964–67. From 1978–88 he was professor of religious studies at Calgary, and he has been professor emeritus since 1988. He was director of the Calgary Institute for the Humanities for three years from 1976. He has held visiting teaching appointments in the Universities of California, Colorado, British Columbia, Washington, and Waterloo; and a number of non-teaching visiting appointments in Great Britain. He has honorary doctorates from the Universities of Lethbridge, Waterloo, and Calgary, and from Lakehead University. He obtained the Alberta Achievement Award in 1987 and the Canada Council Molson Prize for the Humanities and Social Sciences in 1988. He was married to Edith (née Andrews) in 1950. There are two children of the marriage, Rosemary Claire and Andrew Giles (deceased). He became a Canadian citizen in 1961. H. A. Meynell vii Introduction H. A. Meynell Terence Penelhum has distinguished himself in several areas of phi- losophy, notably the philosophy of religion, the question of personal identity and the problem of survival, and the work of David Hume. His work in general is characterised by the clarity and meticulous ar- gument that is the glory and the boast of analytical philosophy, but it never falls into the triviality for which that kind of philosophy has an unsavoury reputation, unfortunately not always undeserved. The philosophical problems that are involved in the knowledge- claims of religious believers, and in the rejection of these claims by sceptics, have been central to Penelhum’s interests throughout his career. These familiar disagreements raise for philosophers general issues in the theory of knowledge, as well as particular problems as- sociated with religion. (It is no wonder, then, that Penelhum has devoted a monograph to Joseph Butler, who is among the most sane and clearheaded of religious apologists, as well as to Hume, the arch- sceptic.) Many have alleged that in order to understand a religion, you have to participate in it. Penelhum objects that, although it is true that rejection of religion is often based on misunderstanding, it is quite wrong to infer that it must always be so. Believers and unbelievers, he insists, may agree not only on what it is that one party accepts and the other rejects, but even to some extent on what would resolve their disagreement. Penelhum has been especially critical of the “parity arguments” used by some philosophers in defence of religion. It is notorious that we cannot “prove” the existence of an external world on the basis of our experience, or that of other minds on the basis of the noises and gestures that we perceive as being made by our fellow human beings. Since all the same we accept the existence of an external world and other minds as a matter of course, the argument runs, the believer may as well do the same thing with regard to the existence of God or ix ii September 27, 2006 Faith, Scepticism and Personal Identity other essentials of her religious faith. Penelhum argues vigorously, to the contrary, that religious believers need arguments, ones that do not explicitly or covertly assume what they are supposed to prove, in support of their beliefs. He is not sanguine about the soundness of traditional proofs for the existence of God, though he does not rule out the possibility that new and more effective forms of such proofs might be found. And it is not impossible, as he sees it, that the his- torical credentials of some religious revelation might tip the balance in favour of its rational acceptability. Christians and other theists have usually believed in some form of life after death. Although Christian theologians have generally in- sisted that we are to expect existence as reconstituted persons, bodies and all, in a restored creation, popular belief has often been rather in the survival of disembodied “souls” that somehow last through the death and dissolution of our physical bodies. There are two kinds of difficulty that attend belief in these doctrines. The first is the question whether it is logically possible to ascribe predicates to disembodied beings while still retaining anything of their original meaning. Persons as we are normally acquainted with them are, after all, material entities, even if of a special kind; in “thinking away” the bodily characteristics of persons as we know them, do we not perhaps think away persons as such? The second is the problem of personal identity. In what sense, if any, could one properly say that the allegedly resurrected John Smith was identical with the original? However close the resemblance in appearance, behaviour, and state of thought or feeling of the later specimen to the earlier, could that later ever amount to anything more than a copy or replica? Penelhum has subjected both problems to searching examination, and has con- cluded that the first is the more nearly intractable. The essays collected in this volume reflect these interests. As John Hick sees it, religious experience occurs when a human being is open to the transcendent “Real” that is universally present and that is envisaged in many religions as a personal God. This experience comes to consciousness and expression through the concepts and symbols of the person concerned, which differ according to whether she or he is Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, or whatever. What is the essential difference between a religious and a naturalistic interpreta- tion of such experience? Hick suggests that if the religious account is true, the universe is such that human beings are destined for a future that will not come about if a merely naturalistic account is correct. Each main religious tradition speaks of such an eschatological state in its own way. It is noteworthy that both religious and naturalistic MEYNELL / Introduction September 27, 2006 iii believers may in a sense be said to “walk by faith,” since either party may turn out to be wrong. Such a naturalistic account of religious experience is definitely championed by Kai Nielsen, who contests the claim of William Alston that religious believers may, in a manner, perceive God. He insists that this cannot be so, at least so far as the developed God of Judaism and its daughter religions is concerned. There is no doubt that people who have what are called “religious” experiences commonly take themselves to be having experiences of God, rather as those who have visual experiences of certain colours and patterns take themselves to be seeing trees. Alston argues that they may be right to do so, Nielsen on the contrary that their supposition is not only false but in the last analysis nonsensical. The basic trouble is that God, as “an infinite individual transcendent to the universe, . could not possibly be directly experienced any more than someone could draw a round square or see a shapeless, colourless figure.” One has to distinguish between seeing, hearing, and so on, which provide us with knowledge of objects other than ourselves, and our affective response to these, which certainly does not supply us with such knowledge in the case of ordinary physical objects. Alston claims that they might do so in the special case of God, but does not appear adequately to justify this contention. Basil Mitchell points out that there are significant secular analo- gies to those aspects of religious faith to which unbelievers are liable to take exception. In all matters of importance to them, human beings have to choose between competing ways of thought none of which can be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. It is not rational, or indeed psychologically possible, for us to be constantly changing our beliefs about these matters in accordance with every scrap of prima facie evidence that may turn up, since in this case our convictions would never reach the point of serious test, or enable us to develop consistent characters, or empower us to change things for the better. Total open-mindedness seems as undesirable an extreme as total dogmatism, especially when one bears in mind how easily social pressures that are by no means rational may masquerade as such. Mitchell writes: We have an interest both in deciding which are the right goals to seek and in pursuing the chosen way resolutely. The latter requirement cannot be met if we are too easily persuaded that we are on the wrong track; the former requirement cannot be met if we refuse to heed any signs that we are going astray. iv September 27, 2006 Faith, Scepticism and Personal Identity I take a more robust, not to say cruder, line in natural theology in trying to show that the principle of sufficient reason can be defended against the usual objections; and I go on to argue that the intelligibil- ity of the universe, its apparent susceptibility through and through to rational explication of the kind exemplified by science, is best ex- plained if it is due as a whole to an intelligent will such as has always been known as God.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophic Study of Religion (With Editorial
    ; THE PHILOSOPHIC STUDY OF RELIGION. BY GEORGE A. BARROW. THE age of the opposition of religion to philosophy has gone by not, however, as has been sometimes said, to give place to an era of good feeling, which is virtually a triumph for the philos- opher, but to be succeeded by a period of indifference to pJiilosophy. The religious leader of to-day does not oppose, he disregards, phi- losophy. Academic circles have not recognized this to any extent, but to an outsider nothing is more marked than the weariness of even educated laymen with any form of philosophical discussion. They care less for it than they do for the old dogmatic sermons of our fathers. The movement of our religious and church life to-day is more practical, we say, and rightly. I do not, however, believe that this is due to any depreciation of philosophy on the part of the religious man, but only to the feeling that the philosopher has not con- sidered him. The study I have undertaken in this paper is to find and set forth the explanation of this disregard. In the modern philosophical study of religion there are three directions of advance. The interest that undoubtedly does exist on the part of the student of philosophy towards religion takes the form either of a study of theism, of the science of religion, or of the philosophy of religion. Theism exists either as the philosophic form of orthodox theology, or as the philosophic construction of monism or absolutism. In the first case we have the same attitude to religion whether we are dealing with an advocate of the idea of a divine revelation above reason, or with a man who draws his arguments for that revelation from current philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Investigation of the Nature of God in Igbo Ontology
    Open Journal of Philosophy, 2015, 5, 137-151 Published Online March 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2015.52016 A Philosophical Investigation of the Nature of God in Igbo Ontology Celestine Chukwuemeka Mbaegbu Department of Philosophy, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Email: [email protected] Received 25 February 2015; accepted 3 March 2015; published 4 March 2015 Copyright © 2015 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Abstract In its general task, philosophy as an academic or professional exercise is a conscious, critical, per- sonal reflection on human experience, on man, and how he perceives and interprets his world. This article specifically examines the nature of God in Igbo ontology. It is widely accepted by all philosophers that man in all cultures has the ability to philosophize. This was what Plato and Aris- totle would want us to believe, but it is not the same as saying that man has always philosophized in the academic meaning of the word in the sense of a coherent, systematic inquiry, since power and its use are different things altogether. Using the method of analysis and hermeneutics this ar- ticle sets out to discover, find out the inherent difficulties in the common sense views, ideas and insights of the pre-modern Igbo of Nigeria to redefine, refine and remodel them. The reason is sim- ple: Their concepts and nature of realities especially that of the nature of God were very hazy, in- articulate and confusing.
    [Show full text]
  • God Is Not a Person (An Argument Via Pantheism)
    International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2019) 85:281–296 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-018-9678-x ARTICLE God is not a person (an argument via pantheism) Simon Hewitt1 Received: 22 November 2017 / Accepted: 3 July 2018 / Published online: 6 July 2018 © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract This paper transforms a development of an argument against pantheism into an objection to the usual account of God within contemporary analytic philosophy (’Swinburnian theism’). A standard criticism of pantheism has it that pantheists cannot ofer a satisfactory account of God as personal. My paper will develop this criticism along two lines: frst, that personhood requires contentful mental states, which in turn necessitate the membership of a linguistic community, and second that personhood requires limitation within a wider context constitutive of the ’setting’ of the agent’s life. Pantheism can, I argue, satisfy neither criterion of personhood. At this point the tables are turned on the Swinburnian theist. If the pantheist cannot defend herself against the personhood-based attacks, neither can the Swinburnian, and for instructively parallel reasons: for neither doctrine is God in the material world; in the pantheist case God is identical with the world, in the Swinburnian case God transcends it. Either way both the pantheist and the Swinburnian are left with a dilemma: abandon divine personhood or modify the doctrine of God so as to block the move to personhood. Keywords Pantheism · Divine personhood · Apophaticism · Divine language Is God a person? Since the advent of philosophy of religion in the analytic tradi- tion the consensus of opinion has favoured answering this question in the afrma- tive (as we will see in due course).
    [Show full text]
  • Religion-And-The-Challenges.Pdf
    RELIGION AND THE CHALLENGES OF SCIENCE Does science pose a challenge to religion and religious belief? This question has been a matter of long•standing debate • and it continues to concern not only scholars in philosophy, theology, and the sciences, but also those involved in public educational policy. This volume provides background to the current ‘science and religion’ debate, yet focuses as well on themes where recent discussion of the relation between science and religion has been particularly concentrated. The first theme deals with the history of the interrelation of science and religion. The second and third themes deal with the implications of recent work in cosmology, biology and so•called intelligent design for religion and religious belief. The fourth theme is concerned with ‘conceptual issues’ underlying, or implied, in the current debates, such as: Are scientific naturalism and religion compatible? Are science and religion bodies of knowledge or practices or both? Do religion and science offer conflicting truth claims? By illuminating contemporary discussion in the science•religion debate and by outlining the options available in describing the relation between the two, this volume will be of interest to scholars and to members of the educated public alike. This page intentionally left blank Religion and the Challenges of Science Edited by WILLIAM SWEET St Francis Xavier University, Canada and RICHARD FEIST Saint Paul University, Canada © William Sweet and Richard Feist 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Theistic Critiques of Atheism William Lane Craig Used by Permission of in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Pp
    Theistic Critiques Of Atheism William Lane Craig Used by permission of In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007. SUMMARY An account of the resurgence of philosophical theism in our time, including a brief survey of prominent anti-theistic arguments such as the presumption of atheism, the incoherence of theism, and the problem of evil, along with a defense of theistic arguments like the contingency argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. THEISTIC CRITIQUES OF ATHEISM Introduction The last half-century has witnessed a veritable revolution in Anglo-American philosophy. In a recent retrospective, the eminent Princeton philosopher Paul Benacerraf recalls what it was like doing philosophy at Princeton during the 1950s and '60s. The overwhelmingly dominant mode of thinking was scientific naturalism. Metaphysics had been vanquished, expelled from philosophy like an unclean leper. Any problem that could not be addressed by science was simply dismissed as a pseudo-problem. Verificationism reigned triumphantly over the emerging science of philosophy. "This new enlightenment would put the old metaphysical views and attitudes to rest and replace them with the new mode of doing philosophy." [1] The collapse of the Verificationism was undoubtedly the most important philosophical event of the twentieth century. Its demise meant a resurgence of metaphysics, along with other traditional problems of philosophy which Verificationism had suppressed. Accompanying this resurgence has come something new and altogether unanticipated: a renaissance in Christian philosophy. The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result.
    [Show full text]
  • On Kalam Argument
    An Argument for God Software Engineering Last updated Wednesday, December 02, 1998 THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (Written not by Curtis Hrischuk but by some other fellow) What follows is a short presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. The sources used in this presentation are documented according to current Modern Language Association standards. Consult the cited works of Craig for a more thorough statement and defense of the argument. The KCA has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word "kalam" means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism" (Craig, KALAM, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning. The KCA has also been defended by Christian and Jewish philosophers. It is currently being defended by professional philosophers William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. The majority of what follows comes from Craig's defense of the argument, though I will use my own words and sometimes my own examples and comments. Here is an outline of the argument-- [1] The universe either had: [A] a beginning [B] or no beginning [2] If it had a beginning, the beginning was either: [A] caused [B] or uncaused [3] If it had a cause, the cause was either: [A] personal [B] or not personal The KCA works by supporting the [A] option of each premise and then using it in the following premise.
    [Show full text]
  • Seiler Dds Theistic Spin
    PHILOSOPHY DD PALMER’S THEISTIC SPIN ON BIOLOGY AND THE MODERN EFFORT TO HIDE IT Eric Seiler Introduction ‘Let’s hijack the other guy’s thought And tie it all up in a knot And contend that his buzz Was not what it was But something we know it was not’ ‘Every important chiropractic idea that I have advanced has been bitterly … a large hunk of our assailed, yet, although somewhat discouraged at times, I have not turned profession continues to fracture away from from that which I knew was correct.’ subluxation-based care. DD Palmer M e d i c a l l y m i n d e d chiropractic educators his essay will take a wide-open look at one of the more controversial sneer at the work of our founders and poison T subjects in the original portrait of the philosophy of chiropractic painted the minds of fledging by our esteemed founder, Daniel David Palmer. That subject is God, or at least chiropractic students u s i n g s t r a i g h t his repeated use of the word God in association with what he believed holds chiropractors’ alleged belief in vitalism and the universe and life in organised existence. What follows is tailored to those o t h e r n o n - m a t e r i a l members of the chiropractic profession with an interest in our original constructs as part of their constellation of philosophy, and how its arguably theistic overtones have been handled over arguments against the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Atheism (The Fact) Good Evidence for Atheism (The Thesis)? on John Schellenberg’S Argument from Ignorance
    IS ATHEISM (THE FACT) GOOD EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM (THE THESIS)? ON JOHN SCHELLENBERG’S ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE CYRILLE MICHON Université de Nantes Abstract. The argument from ignorance mounted by John Schellenberg argues from the existence of non-faulty unbelief to the non-existence of God, from the fact of atheism or agnosticism to the truth of atheism. It relies on two putative conceptual relations: between the idea of love and that of personal relationship, and between personal relationship and existential belief on each side of the relation concerning the other relatum. I argue that each is debatable, and so the argument cannot proceed. Atheism is the thesis that there is no God. But it is also the fact that some people believe that thesis, they believe that there is no God. Of course, the precise content of both the thesis and the fact depends on the notion of God that is at stake. We may at least conceive a distinction between a concept of God relying on a pure metaphysical property, like that of supreme or necessary being, or of first cause, involving some special attributes (the so-called omni-attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, omniperfection) and a concept that relies on a moral dimension and adds to the idea of supremacy, perfection or creation, that such a being is personal, endowed with knowledge and volition, and is a loving person – a supremely or perfectly loving person. Since the metaphysical thesis that there is a first being (in perfection, causality, etc.) is only philosophical, or proper to some philosophers, we could call it ‘philosophical theism’ and its denial ‘philosophical atheism’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Existence of God in Hans Kã¼ng's Does God Exist?
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 4 4-1-1986 The Existence of God in Hans Küng's Does God Exist? Gregory P. Rocca Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rocca, Gregory P. (1986) "The Existence of God in Hans Küng's Does God Exist?," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil19863214 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol3/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN HANS KUNG'S DOES GOD EXIST Gregory Rocca This paper examines Kling's procedure in justifying God at the bar of reason. He first counters nihilism by fundamental trust in reality, which affirms reality as coherent and meaningful. Hc then builds his case for theism upon trust in God, which is itself the condition of the possibility of fundamental trust in reality. Although claiming an intrinsic rationality for both these acts of trust, his position is ultimately reducible to the fideistic answer to the question of God and thus not justifiable at the bar of reason. A philosophical theology, however, should employ reason in favor of the decision for God. In his recent book, Does God Exist, Hans Kung has given us a thoughtful treatment of the question of God's existence that purports to be a rational justifi­ cation of God supportable at the bar of reason.' Reviewers have had much to say in praise of his book, hailing it as a provocative and gripping discussion of the problem of God.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Theology and the Christian Tradition: Russian and Western Perspectives
    Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series IVA, Eastern and Central Europe, Volume 44 Series VIII, Christian Philosophical Studies, Volume 3 General Editor George F. McLean Philosophical Theology and the Christian Tradition: Russian and Western Perspectives Russian Philosophical Studies, V Christian Philosophical Studies, III Edited by David Bradshaw The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy Copyright © 2012 by The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy Box 261 Cardinal Station Washington, D.C. 20064 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Philosophical theology and the Christian traditions : Russian and Western perspectives / edited by David Bradshaw. p. cm. – (Cultural heritage and contemporary change. Series IVA, Eastern & Central European philosophical studies ; v. 44) (Cultural heritage and contemporary change. Series VIII, Christian philosophical studies ; v. 3) Proceedings of a conference held June 1-3, 2010 at Moscow State University. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Philosophical theology--Congresses 2. Philosophy and religion--Congresses. 3. Theology, Doctrinal--Congresses. I. Bradshaw, David, 1960- BT40.P445 2012 2012017634 230.01--dc23 CIP ISBN 978-1-56518-275-2 (paper) This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 David Bradshaw Chapter I. Philosophy of Religion and the Varieties of 5 Rational Theology Vladimir Shokhin Chapter II. Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice 21 Richard Swinburne Chapter III. Models of the Trinity in Patristic Theology 31 Alexey Fokin Chapter IV.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Draft. Please Do Not Cite! the Final Version Is Available in European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol
    This is a Draft. Please do not Cite! The final version is available in European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 10, No. 1., Direct Link THE PROBLEM OF ALTERNATIVE MONOTHEISMS: ANOTHER SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THEISM Raphael Lataster1 University of Sydney Abstract. Theistic and analytic philosophers of religion typically privilege classical theism by ignoring or underestimating the great threat of alternative monotheisms.2 In this article I discuss numerous god- 10.24204/EJPR.V10I1.1801 models, such as those involving weak, stupid, evil, morally indifferent, and non-revelatory gods. I find DOI: that theistic philosophers have not successfully eliminated these and other possibilities, or argued for their relative improbability. In fact, based on current evidence — especially concerning the hiddenness of God and the gratuitous evils in the world — many of these hypotheses appear to be more probable than theism. Also considering the — arguably infinite — number of alternative monotheisms, the inescapable conclusion is that theism is a very improbable god-concept, even when it is assumed that one and only Final Version: Version: Final one transcendent god exists. I. THE PROBLEM Numerous sceptical scholars analyse and scrutinise arguments for the existence of at least one god, generally finding them wanting.3 Furthermore, when such arguments are combined, and contrasted against contra arguments, critical scholars conclude that such cases are not sufficient to make probable the existence of a god or gods. Whilst I concur, I shall reflect on what can be known about the existence of god/s if (many or most of) the arguments are DRAFTgenerally assumed to be persuasive.4 In other words, for the sake of argument, and whilst formulating my argument within the framework of a Bayesian approach,5 I shall temporarily suppose that there is good evidence that supports divine existence, and overlook the many good arguments for ontological naturalism, in the sense of the thesis that there are no gods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dialectical Method of Martin Luther King
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ETD - Electronic Theses & Dissertations THEOLOGIAN OF SYNTHESIS: THE DIALECTICAL METHOD OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. AS REVEALED IN HIS CRITICAL THINKING ON THEOLOGY, HISTORY, AND ETHICS By George Russell Seay, Jr. Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Religion December 2008 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor Victor Anderson Professor Lewis Baldwin Professor Paul DeHart Professor Peter Hodgson Copyright © 2008 by G. Russell Seay, Jr. All Rights Reserved Dedicated to Elder Joseph W. McCoy Friend, Mentor, Confidant, and Patron Saint iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My journey to the completion of this dissertation and Ph.D. program is liken to the turtle perched on the gatepost. It could not have gotten there by itself. There are so many persons that have contributed to my completing this program. My undergraduate professors at Oakwood College were Clifford Pitts, my theology teacher who opened up to me the world of theology and sparked an interest that would be fanned into a blaze. Benjamin Reaves, my homiletics professor who demonstrated that theology at its best serves the preaching moment. My teachers at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, Raoul Dederen, Norman Miles, Robert Johnston, Walter Douglass, Fritz Guy, and Hans LaRondale, who grounded me in my faith tradition by insisting that “faith seeking understanding is a life long journey.” I would like to thank my professors at Vanderbilt. The classes and seminars of Sallie McFague, Eugene TeSelle, Edward Farley, Victor Anderson, Lewis Baldwin, Peter Hodgson and Paul DeHart were challenging, provocative, and stimulating.
    [Show full text]